Making a judgment for yourself and your children

25 years ago I began to notice a change in responsibility and judgments being abrogated to others making the judgment for us, denial of opportunity for choice, and decision making by rubric. Those who are older than me may say they saw it sooner. Those my junior may accept it as the status quo.

As a child I had a winter coat with a drawstring hood. I pushed a lawn mower around that weighed more than me and didn't shut off when you picked up toys or hazards. There were adults that you knew not to be alone with but there was no list stating so.

I have a Toshiba DVD player that I am going to use to christen my front porch slab once I get it poured. On more than one occasion I have pulled a DVD case from my library, removed the disc, placed disc in said player and received the message “wrong disc”. Yet, the labeling on the disc matches the cover on the case and was the movie I intended to watch. Toshiba is implying that my moral compass is not appropriate and that I am attempting to watch something of ill character. So, apparently I am no longer responsible to make a judgment about the content of pre-recorded media that I view. Wrong. I am going to exercise some judgment – that is to never buy a Toshiba product again.

It gets no better when I get to my parents home and start to wipe out the left overs in the fridge after my 26 mile ride. I sought to heat some in their microwave. I set the desired time and then retrieve a larger bowl in which to mix the various ingredients. Upon completion of the set time the message “food is ready” flashed across the display. Really? As expected there were portions which were warm and others that were relatively cool. Ready? Not by my standards but then who am I to judge. Apparently it is no longer up to me to select at what temperature I want to serve or blend my food. Frigidaire has taken it upon themselves to decide for me.

This may seem mundane or trite but I think it demonstrates two instances of the overwhelming saturation of proxy decision making for us by others. Often by those who are far removed from us and may not share any of our cultural norms. It is part of a comprehensive societal norm that can have a significant impact upon your family and your children.

As I said, we children knew which adults with whom we should not be alone. I have often railed against the use of background checks and the sex offender registry as being the deciding factor in employment decisions. I have an audio recording of a school administrator speaking in a lecherous tone about students and admitting to a sexual assault. Why does this person still have contact with children in a school system? Because the voters in the current school corporation chose to use the lack of a criminal conviction as a green light to employment. No one needs to make a judgment about employing a sex offender. Use the rubric that allows employment of one who has managed to arrange his exodus from a previous school corporation which didn't want it revealed that they employed an admitted sex offender.

Clearly children are endangered and those who allow it can claim cleans hands because they “just followed the policy”. The lack of accountability and diffusion of responsibility for exposing children to potential harm is extending itself across the full care and parental spectrum. Recently my ire has been raised by the reliance on biased and agenda motivated evaluators in child custody cases. Courts, although charged with making the final decision, are relying too heavily on outside agitators who profit from protracted litigation and harmed children. Judges need to hear from the people directly responsible for the care of children. They need to hear from the parents themselves and be presented with evidence about the current and past performance of these parents. What is not productive for the children and conducive to a child well-being based custody decision is the skewing of reality as presented by an evaluator.

Courts need to take the time to allow and hear all relevant evidence in making child custody decisions. The rules of trial procedure need to be relaxed for child custody cases. Judges need to receive appropriate education on child custody issues. Parents need to quit relying upon evaluators. Parents and all taxpayers need to demand a reallocation of funding and tax savings redirected to the courts instead of the mental health profession, the medical community in general, the law enforcement community and others who profit from harm to children.

Parents don't want to be responsible. They don't want to take more time to investigate a child day care center [that term used euphemistically only. I prefer child warehousing centers] than to select a mobile phone. They don't want to be held accountable. The buck stops with someone else. When harm happens, when their child gets molested it was because “someone wasn't doing their job”. That someone is the face in the mirror. That someone is more concerned about his or her rights and proving the other parent unfit as a means of retribution for the separation or divorce rather than focusing solely on the best interest of the children.

If you would like to be a parent who is responsible for your child's well-being and your own 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.

Why Judicial Impartiality is Tantamount - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part XIII

We all feel better and more secure when there is transparency in decisions being imposed upon us. Most of us have felt “ripped-off” by the small print or the hidden details that languish in oblivion somewhere behind the shroud of the hype and marketing headlines. As far as I am concerned the two Washington factions can make sequester and budget deals behind close doors and ram it down our throats. I don't care. What I think is of much greater importance and gets much less attention is the welfare of children and the necessary transparency to ensure that their best interest are met.

We know intuitively that when someone tries to hide the details from us that they are up to no good. Precisely what attorney Cynthia Dean wanted to do in the Moore v Moore case was to keep the public from being able to access the GAL report prepared by Del Anderson also of their mutual employer, Child Advocates, Inc. Up to know good is apparently what Child Advocates Incorporated has been doing. Del Anderson lied to the court, Cynthia Dean tried to get Brian Moore to violate the court's order and she has also opposed any efforts to end this litigation.

Cindy Booth the Director of Child Advocates, Inc., appeared in court yesterday with Cynthia Dean. Obviously something has occurred to make her take interest in what Cynthia Dean has been doing. It is somewhat of a consolation to see Cindy Booth taking an interest in the actions of those people operating under her in the name of the organization she directs. It is still possible that Dean and Anderson are rogue players. It would be comforting to hear that and that the relationship of each with Child Advocates, Inc., were being terminated. Sadly, I don't think that is happening. I continue to look at this situation objectively and desire a healthful and productive resolution to this clear violation of the public trust. At some point the objective and open mind must give way to intuitive conclusions with the passage of time. Although one month to the day since Del Anderson lied in court and about two weeks since it was confirmed through the responses to my public records requests has passed, nothing has been done. The longer period of inaction is attributable to the activities of Cynthia Dean. In August I wrote a series of articles about how she lied to Brian Moore in an attempt to get him to violate the court's order and inflict further disruption and hardship upon the children. Yet, over six months later, she is still getting paid to do similar harm. More disturbing though is that I have made repeated requests to Child Advocates Incorporated for comment. I will send a printed copy of this posting to Cindy Booth and again plead for a response. This is an organization that, although privately funded, is integrated into our public court system and as such when their representatives bring our court system into disrepute then the public is entitled to an explanation.

I have great respect for our judicial system and the judicial officers have dedicated their lives to the service of the judiciary. While an out-of-control youth I was sentenced to prison by US Federal Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Last year I thanked her for that as she likely saved me either from a long life in prison or from the certain demise of the deadly course in which I was entrenched. Yet during that period I mowed former Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randy Shepard's yard when he was on vacation travels. He lived just down the street from me. So did another judge whom I still see and helped out back then.

The status conference yesterday was called by the judge who had recently accepted jurisdiction over the case after Judge Heather Welch disqualified herself. Once it was disclosed that I would likely be called as a witness, that judge, Robert Altice, made all parties aware that he and I knew each other. This was a procedural requirement as our relationship could give the impression that because he and I know each other socially that he would tend to give greater weight to my testimony. I don't believe that he would and I don't expect to be treated any different by him than that of other witnesses. Knowing judges or other public officials is part of the routine.

I dedicate my life to working with the judiciary, attorneys, legislators and parents to ensure that courts are recognized as the venue that does resolve parental disputes over custody in a manner that is in the best interest of our children. Essential to that mission is ensuring that our judiciary performs its duties impartially. Here again is the Preamble to the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct;

An independent, fair and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The United States legal system is based upon the principle that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that governs our society. Thus, the judiciary plays a central role in preserving the principles of justice and the rule of law. Inherent in all the Rules contained in this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.

I implore you to take the time to read and digest those words and grasp the awesome power of them. It is truly remarkable that we have a system where any two parties in a dispute may have their conflict resolved by an impartial arbitrator. Essential to that sense must be that the judicial system is truly an impartial venue free of bias. That is likely why I am so incensed, relentless in my verbal assaults and disgusted by those judges like, Justice Steve David, who violate this trust.

To ensure that a judge remains impartial and based judgment upon a valid application of the evidence those who come before the court have an obligation to the integrity of the court. Lawyers are advocates and therefore have no obligation to be impartial. They would actually be violating their ethical obligation if they were impartial. Yet, they are still bound by rules. Similarly, witness affirm upon their oath that they will be truthful with the court while they are often objective in their presentation. The third party evaluators and “independent witnesses” should, much like the judge, be impartial. In some cases, such as Moore v Moore, it is the court who seeks input from these evaluators to assist in making a custody decision and ensuring that the best interest of the children are met. This is a rather common occurrence in high conflict cases where hostilities have replaced most objectivity and conciliation is viewed as defeat. These evaluators act in a quasi judicial manner in their capacity as a collector of evidence and advocate for the child's best interest. In maintaining the integrity of the judiciary there are also standards established to guide the actions of these third party attorneys. I've selected a portion of the American Bar Association Section of Family Law Standards of Practice for Lawyers Representing Children in Custody Cases that applies to the “Best Interest Attorney” such as Cynthia Dean;

Pretrial Responsibilities
Take any necessary and appropriate action to expedite the proceedings.
Participate in, and, when appropriate, initiate, negotiations and mediation. The lawyer should clarify, when necessary, that she or he is not acting as a mediator; and a lawyer who participates in a mediation should be bound by the confidentiality and privilege rules governing the mediation.
Commentary
The lawyer is in a pivotal position in negotiations. The lawyer should attempt to resolve the case in the least adversarial manner possible, considering whether therapeutic intervention, parenting or co-parenting education, mediation, or other dispute resolution methods are appropriate. The lawyer may effectively assist negotiations of the parties and their lawyers by focusing on the needs of the child, including where appropriate the impact of domestic violence. Settlement frequently obtains at least short-term relief for all parties involved and is often the best way to resolve a case. The lawyer’s role is to advocate the child’s interests and point of view in the negotiation process. If a party is legally represented, it is unethical for a lawyer to negotiate with the party directly without the consent of the party’s lawyer. [emphasis added]

Dean did the exact opposite though. She opposed, mediation and has engaged in numerous actions calculated to prolong litigation. Her reason for doing this, I believe, is motivated by pure greed. The more time she spends sitting in court doing nothing the more she gets paid. The more that Child Advocates, Inc., pays her the more they can seek from sponsors based upon the “increased need”. Their sponsors are more than willing to contribute and satisfy this need. In the next posting I will start with an explanation of how harming children can be profitable to the sponsors of Child Advocates, Inc.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com

Brian Moore's motivations - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part XII

In Part XI of this series I left off with having told you about Kristy's personality type. Now I am going to explore Brian's personality type and the effect these may have on each other. Again, it is important to note that while people of particular personality types exhibit a common range of behaviours people are not limited to behaviours based upon personality and it would be in error to base assumptions of future behaviour on personality type. Anyone can control exhibited behaviours if there is a willingness to do so.

Personality types do not cause the conflict but in some cases are a compelling contributor. To fully understand why the Moore v Moore modification of custody and parenting time is in its third year an assessment of the factors of the parents' background, their reactions to them, and how these personalities interact need to be revealed.

Brian currently works as a self-employed carpenter which gives him the flexibility to dedicate his time to his children when they are available to him. Like most in his personality type this is a must as their driving ambition results from a commitment to family. He was also educated as a scientist, and then as a financial analyst.  Brian is analytical by nature and decisions are based upon a logical consideration. 

He is bound by strong feelings, firm principles and personal integrity. Brian's personality type may find it difficult to speak or acquiesce those “little white lies” that are often dispensed without contemplation. This can create conflict and produce strain in a marriage with someone who doesn't hold the same values. The ability to see deeper meanings and have intuitive insights into situations can lead to insistence on having their ideas accepted and applied by those who don't possess the same skills. Although they wish to avoid conflict it can often surround them.

This type of logic based thinking person will resist ideas that conflict with his or her values. These thinkers may lack the ability to put themselves in the position of others and get frustrated by others lack or rational decision making. Difficulty in interpersonal relationships is a manifestation of this. Their hypersensitivity to criticism and perfectionism make it burdensome to function under the direction of others, especially cost conscious employers or those perceived to lack superior logical stature. Thinkers like this most often follow a de facto requirement that they become entrepreneurs.

When Thinkers and Feelers clash, more often than not the feeling types end up hurt and angry, while the analytical thinker is confused about what went wrong. These personality types may still be compatible through mutual respect, but for some pairs it is not achieved or overly stressful to maintain. For Brian it is extremely difficult to give up on something like a marriage not only because of his personality type but that the value that was placed on marriage during his childhood. Brian was raised in an intact family where marriage was valued and preserved. Brian's father worked as a scientist and his mother a nurse which clearly acting in a supporting nature to his analytical and logic based ways.

To the contrary, Kristy was the product of a divorce. The greatest impact of divorce on children comes not at the time of separation but manifests itself more intensely in their adult lives. The younger the child is at the time of separation the greater this impact. For some women the hurt they experience from the lack of family cohesion is never assuaged. The post separation discord and conflict is correlated to the impact in adulthood. The greater the conflict the more pronounced the adverse impact during adulthood. Like so many of her generation, Kristy's father played a peripheral as that of visitor.

Judith Wallerstein who, unfortunately died at age 90 last year, conducted a 25 year longitudinal study of children of divorce. She had this to say about some women whose parents had divorced.
They take dominant roles with men, getting pleasure out of seducing, conquering, and then abandoning partner after partner. These young women were motivated by a frank vengeance against men that was startling in its passion.
Such behaviour seems hard to understand in attractive, intelligent young women, including some who were in graduate programs and professional schools.”[fn1]

While Kristy may have initially sought to establish control in her life by marrying and then subsequently abandoning Brian this does not explain the continued litigation. Kristy has come to thrive on the litigation. It gives her a sense of purpose. It has become her opiate and the essence of her being. Contrary to the nervousness and trepidation exhibited by most litigants, upon entering the court room it becomes apparent that Kristy is in an elevated mood and is hooked on this battle. When compared to her most exciting and thrilling events in life, court appearances may rate more than double. This protracted litigation may be seen as the problem but it is not. Her addiction [a term which I use as a placeholder for the more accurate phrase 'lack of willpower'] is not the problem, it is the solution. What I mean by that is whatever the substance, behaviour or delusion that one craves is not the basis of their adversity but is the self-medicated result of the underlying issue. As I explained in the last posting the underlying issue for Kristy is her self-grandiose image as the protector of the children. By continuing to fight in court Kristy sees herself as fulfilling her mandate to “protect” her children while obfuscating the real harm she is causing. This gives her a great sense of purpose and pleasure.

Brian's logic and conciliation based approach does not comport with Kristy's mindset. Brian wants reason and logical structure to dictate their interactions and he becomes frustrated and irritated when that is not achieved. I can imagine scenarios in the marital household involving shouting or name calling, the types of responses that we have when someone just doesn't get it. Think of the person in front of you waiting for the stop sign to turn green or for traffic to be clear a mile in each direction before proceeding. These people don't get it. Some decisions should not be based upon feeling alone. This is not to say that there is no place for feeling or gut instinct but to disregard all logical considerations is in error. For the thinker it can be overwhelming when simple logic is ignored or there is a failure to comprehend.

Kristy sees any eruption of frustration and straight forward logical demands as further validation of her agenda. In her mind Brian is trying to do the very thing she is trying to avoid – being controlled; Having someone do the thinking for her. Kristy had been in control. She abandoned the family and filed for divorce. She determined the course of actions leading to the building of the legal fund war-chest. She determined the location of a new residence. She determined that she would protect the children by reducing the involvement and influence of their father in their lives. She determined that this matter would be litigated to the bitter end. Anything less would be a failure and a loss of control. But as anyone who observes her testimony under cross-examination, it is clear that she needs someone to do the thinking for her. And although she has not particularly raised the issue of “the mental and physical health of all individuals involved” that is factor number six under Indiana Code 31-17-2-8 that a judge must consider when modifying custody.

Even with having her parenting time reduced. Having her standing with the court being diminished – being told she is “not credible”. Having the standard of living of herself, Brian and the children minimized because of litigation costs. She steadfastly proceeds. She is like the Terminator – she will not stop. It will take the intervention of the court. It could be through the assistance of third-party professionals to help mediate a settlement or assuage the acrimony between Brian and Kristy.

But in this case there was no help there to be found. The court, I now fully believe, mistakenly introduced Child Advocates Incorporated into the mix. Their attorney, Cynthia Dean, opposed settling this case through mediation and instead tried to provoke Brian into violating the court's order. Their guardian ad litem, Del Anderson, clearly took an adversarial position and lied to the court in an effort to perpetuate this litigation. To these feeling types the conflict is the product of Brian's insistence on staunch adherence to logical and nearly absolute methodical resolution to this case. Thus, they are roped into and support the agenda of Kristy which is borne of a resentment towards men from a childhood tragedy and is not in the best interest of the Moore children.

Now that it has been over a week and I have received NO RESPONSES to my requests for comment from the financiers of Child Advocates, Inc., I will next start posting about who they are and how they benefit from harming children.

[1] Wallerstein, Judith. "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce" (2000)

If you are involved in a child custody battle and would like to gain insight into the thinking of the opposing party, that party's attorney and the judge 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.

Kristy Moore's motivations - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part XI

In Part X of this series I left off telling you that I would reveal the possible motivations for Kristy's actions, the elements of her personality type that drive this and the effect it is having on the children.

Prior to signing the mediated agreement Kristy was already preparing for a custody battle. That process began seven months after signing the child custody agreement. At trial Kristy spun a web of baseless allegations that centered around her claim that she and Brian were unable to communicate and that Brian is an unfit parent who is abusive to the children. Some of the more bizarre claims included that Brian had visited her home in the middle of the night – harassing her by banging on the door repeatedly – and had also slashed the tires on her car at some point. Neither incident was reported to police nor corroborated by any direct evidence but to Kristy they felt real.

In court Kristy detailed her course of action to build a war-chest for the custody battle. She detailed some of the adjustments she made for her and the children. These included living with her parents, sacrificing having a new car and not being able to adequately provide her share of support for the children. When the coffers were stuffed she made her move, literally. She relocated from her parents home to a house in Pendleton and then commuted back to Indianapolis for her work at IPS. She likely thought this would elevate her standing in regards to factor five: The child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community. They now had their own home, lived in a new community and had to adjust to the strange environment.

Kristy certainly made some points in her presentation and it seemed as though Jonathan Deenik had been advising her well which, for $20,000, he should. That is the amount that Kristy claimed to have in her war-chest. But under cross-examination by Brian, Kristy's tower seemed to collapse. Particularly when asked if it makes sense to spend $20K on an attorney but not the support of the children, such as their education, she replied – No! Deenik was unable to redeem her. Judge Heather Welch proclaimed that she was able to “see through [Kristy's] scheme.” The Court reduced Kristy's exposure to the children from that of every other week to the time after work [around 5:00pm] until they they are put on the bus to school the following morning on Monday afternoons through Friday mornings. Except for the first and third Mondays each month when Brian keeps them overnight.

As has been consistent throughout Brian continued to communicate with Kristy about parenting time matters and the well-being of the children. This included regularly offering to her opportunities for mediation which have been either ignored or rebuffed. She has, however, been amenable to engaging Brian in discussion about his offers of additional parenting time to her. In realizing the need for the children to maintain their new relationships in Pendleton and to experience meaningful interactions with each parent, which include ample opportunities for leisure activity, Brian has offered to Kristy one weekend per month of additional parenting time. This would give her a parent-child relationship of more than evening household duties and morning preparation for school.

Although Kristy has, according to her, depleted her legal expense war-chest; been told by the judge that her testimony is “not credible”; has had her effective parenting time substantially reduced; has by any measure of even a casual observer not made a compelling argument of a change of circumstances; and, contrary to her assertions about lack of communication, has continued to communicate effectively with Brian regarding her opportunities for additional parenting time – still continues to fight. Can there be any rational reason for this course of action? Can it be easily explained. The answers are yes and no.

Anyone would say, just as Kristy did, that it doesn't make sense to neglect your child's education or other needs just to carry on a baseless legal fight. It's just not rational. But to the irrational mind there is no conflict. Although I don't believe that personality type is a scientific predictor of future behaviour I do feel it can be correlated to past actions. In child custody terms Kristy has the mind of the “protector”. In her mind she is motivated by empathy for the children and a sense of needing to assure their well-being. This would explain the basis for her establishing her plan and building the legal fund war-chest.

Post-divorce children need stability and security. Especially those who are youngest, such as the pre-school Moore children were at the time Kristy filed for divorce. These children may endeavor for their parents reconciliation over a span of years. They often feel an intense sense of loss as parents rebuild their lives – economically, socially and sexually – and fail to engage in former routines such as bedtime stories or being socially engaged in the community or school. The effect becomes more acute when a parent relocates and creates a distance that renders participation by the other parent more difficult. New residences or new partners coming and going from the residence contribute to the feeling of insecurity and often exacerbate the outcome. These outcomes are often anger, loneliness, lack of trust and recoiling unto themselves. They learn to hide their feelings and pretend that things are fine.

Their hurt isn't so easily hidden though. When a child needs stability and continuity most he isn't getting it. This is why it is essential that parents continue to communicate. While dinner habits, bedtime routines and rules of the house may just seem like different parenting styles that each parent may now fully express in his or her own home, to the child they represent incongruity, instability and a lack of parental cohesion. Therefore, parents should attempt to establish as much conformity for the child as possible while still respecting each others differences. It takes effort, sometimes more than a parent who has come home from a stressful day at work wants to be confronted with by three email messages sent throughout the day.

The protector sees the signs of problems in the children and attributes them to the other parent. The child who withdraws into a near incommunicado state may be perceived as being sexually or otherwise abused. The protector parent won't correctly attribute the child's undirected anger as being the result of that parent being an absent parent in the home. After all, he or she is there, is providing material necessities and is himself or herself feeling more stable and secure now that the divorce is over. With all these positives attributes the only cause of a problem in the child's life must be the other parent. The problems provide a confirmation to the “protector” parent.

In observing Kristy in court, reviewing her court filings and reading years of email and text messages one can attribute a personality type to her. Some of the clearest observable traits about Kristy is her inability to think logically, to draw inferences or conclusions based upon available information. On the witness stand there were two distinct people. The first being the poised, confident and empathetic caring parent who fully answered Jonathan Deenik's questions with relevant responses. Moments later would appear the lost, confused, imaginary spirit who was nearly mute or rambled on with delusion based tales irrelevant to the proceedings during cross examination.

Kristy can easily be seen by coworkers or friends as easy to get along with, patient and flexible. She is a good team member, loyal and needs harmonious relationships in her life. She likes to live for the moment and is artistic. She is very accepting of people and doesn't try to peer into motives or meanings behind actions but takes them at face value. She is sensitive to conflicts and disagreement but this can also be a setback for her. Feedback, whether it be employment performance or parenting related, is taken personally. Suggestions of change are an offense to her and she tends to become discouraged or hostile. She has difficulty understanding more complex systems, especially interpersonal relationships. She often overlooks long-term consequences and doesn't prepare in advance. Her actions are motivate more by feeling than logic. She functions best in a structured and ordered environment while being prodded by others yet she does best when not having to confer with others when deciding important matters.

This personality type is not a statistical anomaly. In fact, it is quite proportional among personality types. So why is then that there is such conflict between her and Brian and that this can't be resolved yet while in its third year? In the next segment I will analyze Brian's personality and how that has contributed to this morass.

If you need assistance in refuting an Indiana child custody evaluator 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.

Parental Responsibility - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part X

In Part IX of this series I assessed the responsibilities of judicial officers as it relates to the decision making process in child custody cases and the use of evaluators. I take to task there what I see as the failure of Judge Heather Welch to proactively manage these proceedings. While I feel that her parenting time decisions in the interim were sound and, likely, better than if the proceedings had been more timely settled, I do strongly believe that this is an anomaly. I have seen few cases where the protracted litigation and use of additional advisors from various disciplines produced better results than the preexisting arrangement. The current parenting time decision was made without significant contribution by any of the third-party participants.

Throughout this series I have continued to unload my harshest rebuke towards Cynthia Dean and Del Anderson of Child Advocates. Anderson and Dean have prolonged this litigation through their deliberate substantive misrepresentations to the father and the court. This litigation is well into its third year and will likely enter its fourth before a judgment in rendered. Also to take some of the blame is Jonathan Deenik of Cross, Pennamped, Woolsey, and Glazier , who has absolutely lied to the court as a review of the audio recordings of the September 2011 hearing demonstrates when compared to his later filings and statements to the court. Rampant perjury aside there is more blame to assess.

One cannot hold the ancillary cast of characters involved in this show accountable without enjoining the producers in the blame game. It is the parents who are embattled with each other and whether directly or through the interdiction of the court are responsible for the admission of the custody evaluators to the forum. That while the peripheral players may antagonize the parties, frustrate the court and prolong the process it is incumbent upon the parents to take full ownership of the responsibility for creating the situation.

This may seem a daunting prospect in a society that attempts to absolve all members of accountability for their actions but in child custody proceedings and decisions the children are not assuaged – they blame the parents.

Child custody battles harm children!!!

Judges know this, child advocates know this, MHPs know this and parents damn well better know this. Yet, fight they do and at times voraciously without consideration for the wishes, benefits and needs of the children. Logic is often supplanted by rationalization in which a parent justifies his or her harm to the children by convincing his or her self that the “temporary” harm is for the greater, long-term benefit of the children or by overlooking any harm as part of the “normal” process.

There exists certain patterns that predictably manifest themselves following divorce. Most often has been the mother as custodian and residential parent and father as the financial provider who is granted some visitation time. Custodial parents often see the non-custodial parents' demands for additional parenting time as a threat to their new found autonomy and fragile financial security. Rebuking this demand erupts initially from lingering emotional wounds and vindictiveness. This is especially true in second generation divorces – the divorces of children whose parents divorced.

From the child's perspective he has lost the parent he lives with. This parent is absent in the home. During the marriage he could count on at least one parent attending to his needs, helping with homework, providing nurturing and guiding conversation and comforting him through nighttime rituals before he went to sleep. Post divorce he is tended to by a stranger until retrieved by a parent after work who has become more of a drill sergeant dispensing orders while tossing a frozen meal into the microwave before retreating to his or her bedroom. Most queries to the child are not out of genuine interest for the child's well-being but are to provide opportunity for early interdiction into the next crisis or to spy on the other parent. This once patient and nurturing parent now too tired and impatient will scream about the slightest offense before heading off to his or her bedroom and shutting the door. The alternating weekend parenting time schedule provides an opportunity to recharge and pursue new romantic interests.

Those weekends are also stressful for the child who is removed from the often unstructured environment of the custodial home where he or she is free to talk on the phone or watch television uninhibited. Suddenly the child is thrust into another household where time is nearly fully scheduled and doesn't include opportunity for the child to freely associate with friends or chat on the phone, play games or tend to internet activities. The non-custodial parent may be just as irritable when scheduling is not adhered to and the child's longing for interaction with friends is ignored for want of spending 100% of this limited time engaged with the child. The child is left without either pre-divorce parent but instead interracts with two competing “strangers”.

Healthy parents who remain in close proximity after separation may agree upon a flexible Shared Parenting plan that accommodates the scheduling needs of each while considering the desires of the children. But even this arrangement can become strained and collapse by a unilateral action of a parent who may be dissatisfied for any of numerous reasons. Sadly this includes the parents failure to adapt and the resentfulness or hurt at seeing the other parent move on and prosper. Lingering emotional issues that may evolve into a diagnostic condition can also be a contributing factor. Too often the chosen method to ameliorate that resentfulness or hurt or the way in which the emotional issues manifest themselves is to inflict pain upon the other parent by taking the children away.

The immediate case which fostered this series of articles provides the anecdotal evidence. After Kristy filed for divorce she and Brian litigated the matter heavily until reaching a compromise in December 2009 that provided for the children to spend alternating weeks with each parent who both shared legal custody.

In this Shared Parenting agreement was a stipulation common to many; Brian would pay an elevated support amount in exchange for equal parenting time and ending the litigation. As a sole proprietor carpenter Brian faced another common hurdle – deterioration in business income. As is often the case, to finance the legal battle he drew down his business investment. Additionally, his business suffered from lack of attention while the litigation was being waged. If those two factors weren't enough the country was mired in a housing recession and new home construction and remodeling demands for carpenters had long waned. Not surprisingly, Brian didn't make consistent and full child support payments.

Seven months later, in July of 2010, Kristy alleged that there had been a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties since the agreement was signed which warranted a change to Brian having IPTG minimum parenting time and being stripped of legal custody. Although I felt that the petition was facially deficient and should have been dismissed that wasn't my call to make and thus it went to trial.

In the next segment I will reveal the possible motivations for Kristy's actions, the elements of her personality type that drive this and the effect it is having on the children.

If you need assistance in refuting an Indiana child custody evaluator 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.

Letting a Judge make a Judgment - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part IX

While it definitely has imperfections and I am always pursuing efforts towards improvement, I feel great respect for an honour to be involved in our judicial system and its processes. Maintaining the integrity of this system is essential to its lasting stature and influence in our society.

Here is the Preamble to the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct.
An independent, fair and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The United States legal system is based upon the principle that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that governs our society. Thus, the judiciary plays a central role in preserving the principles of justice and the rule of law. Inherent in all the Rules contained in this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.

As the arbitrator of a child custody proceeding the judge is empowered to make a decision based upon personal judgment but also bound by Rules of Court and specific statutory provisions. Concurrent with this limited power is the responsibility to ensure that decisions are reflective of the best interest of the child.

A judicial officer has the responsibility of balancing that interest with due process rights of the parents or other parties engaged in the process. To assist in making the awesome decisions regarding child custody judicial officers may be bombarded by information from the parents and their advocates, the judge's research and education, evaluators and other expert contributors either hired by the parents or the court. In addition judges must acknowledge and suppress their own personal biases.

Essential to the integrity of judicial proceedings is ensuring that due process is afforded to all parties while impartiality is maintained. That is, justice is blind. There are threats to this impartiality that are inert, incidental, and directly imposed.

We all have biases that develop through our accumulated experiences. I have a bias that informs me that divorcing parents are hostile, self-centered combatants who don't care about their children. I easily push this invading though aside as logic tells me this is not true and is based solely upon my experience as a specialist in high conflict parenting cases. Judges have biases that have been developing since their first moment of cognition. For most, these inert biases are easily managed.

A greater danger to a judicial officers ability to make a decision – a decision consistent with the best interest of the children, due process and the evidence presented – are the incidental biases. These come from various sources which may include the evidence presented by mental health professionals or other advisors to the court which may be tainted by the evaluators biases towards the subjects. Further removed from the immediate participants is the societal influence. In speaking with a judge once this became clear. The conversation was about issuing ex parte orders for protection and the proliferation of false allegations. The judge's position was poignantly explained with the statement, “They can always request a hearing but if I don't issue the TPO and someone gets killed what happens to me at the next election?”

There is also the direct threats to the judicial officer. These can be in the form of either physical threats to the judge's well-being or the judge's character or reputation if a ruling is not made in one's favour. A direct threat will likely result in a finding of criminal contempt in addition to other charges and sanctions. I have been involved in a case where a judge was, according to an anonymous caller, threatened with physical harm. In my own divorce a message was left in the mailbox of the judge that was clearly meant to implicate me. Even though the perpetrator of the acts may not be known they can reinforce an inert bias. The other form of a threat is what can be called character assassination. As a prolific writer who feels no intimidation from anyone I will not hesitate to expose what I may view as an injustice. Numerous judges are well aware of this which is appreciated by some who see this action as ensuring integrity by their colleagues. I have participated in a case where a pro se litigant received far different treatment after I joined the proceedings. My comments are not all condemnations – HERE I lauded praises upon Marion County Superior Court judge David Certo and Indiana Supreme Court Justice Dickson. Either way this potential praise or condemnation by myself or a litigant can produce a bias if a judge is not vigilant about this influence.

Bias-free proceedings enhance the likelihood that children will find themselves in the care of the most appropriate caretakers. In the previous segment of this series I addressed the influence of third-party child custody agitators who seek to prolong litigation for their personal gain. Too often these characters are not adept enough to suppress their personal biases or have entered this industry to implement their biases. The opinions of these people based upon their intuitions and guesswork are like black holes; they are only theory, we haven't seen them, and we can't prove their existence. They are the greatest assumption that we can make so we internalize it as fact.

This is the difficulty for the judicial officer who feels ill equipped to make a decision based solely upon his or her own judgment. It is perfectly natural to want to diffuse this responsibility especially when, as a society, we have been conditioned not to accept responsibility. This is apparently what happened in the Moore v Moore case. Judge Welch said in September 2011 when she recessed these proceedings that she wanted the assistance of an independent evaluator and thus Child Advocates Inc., was assigned.

At that hearing I believe that all the necessary evidence had been presented and that a judgment could have been rendered at that time without additional input or delay. Judicial officers are responsible for the prompt and just disposition of matters to which they were assigned. They have the duty to control the movement of cases through the system. The attorneys have a duty to cooperate by being ready to proceed with scheduled matters. Judges should not grant, nor should lawyers request, postponements except for good cause[fn1]. I do believe that Judge Welch failed in this regard as the matter has been continued indefinitely for more than half of the cognitive lives of the children.

Judge Welch disqualified herself from the case earlier this month. The incoming judge assigned to this case is going to be inundated with information. But is this going to be a benefit or a hindrance to making a sound judicial child custody decision?

People in times of uncertainty are generally overconfident based on the availability of information to them. Increased information makes experts more confident but not more accurate. Stock analysts are notorious for this. In the modern era with the internet and a plethora of data about companies and predictions of market analysts earning $1M+ annually you would think that stock picking by professional fund managers would be getting more on target. That has not been the case though. The analysts themselves while expressing 80% confidence in their price targets were only 60% correct.[fn2] Fund managers consistently have underperformed the S&P 500 about 75% of the time from the Great Depression through 2012.[fn3] From the 1970's through the 1990's analysts error rates in predicting company quarterly earnings for the upcoming reporting period actually ticked upward by about 40% as more data became available. My success in stock trading comes from avoiding data and trading on instinct. When Apple recently shot up from the $450's to $466 in a few minutes I sold the shares I had recently bought at $448. When the S&P 500 hit 1520 last week I shorted [selling stock you don't own hoping the price will drop and then replacing those shares at that lower price] the index and then watched the CNBC talking heads that evening saying that anyone short this market is making a bad bet, it is going higher. And lower it went on Wednesday and lower it went on Thursday. I bought back on Thursday three minutes after the S&P 500 hit its low for the week and one point above that low. I do this purely on gut reaction because as I have long known – more information gets in the way of making valid decisions.

This is something lost on most “expert” prognosticators including these child custody evaluators. These supposed oracles are no better at predicting parent-child relationship outcomes than stock analysts are at picking winners nor judges at making decisions solely on their intuitions.

Not everyone is blessed with the extraordinary abilities to make correct intuitive decisions but research across numerous disciplines has continually demonstrated that increased data and analysis does not lead to greater accuracy. Judges are people that posses similar inert qualities of intuition and judgment. I believe that letting judicial officers make judgments without the conflicting and often biased input of outside advisors with varying motives will lead to better child custody outcomes.

[1] STANDARDS RELATING TO TRIAL COURTS § 2.31 (American Bar Association 1992)
[2] Amos Tversky, “The Psychology of Decision Making,” in A. Wood (ed.), Behavioral Finance and Decision Theory in Investment Management, ICFA Continuing Education series, 1995, pp. 2-6.
[3] David Dreman, “Contrarian Investment Strategies: The Next Generation, Simon & Shuster 1998. also; Jim Kramer, CNBC 02 January 2013.

If you need assistance in refuting an Indiana child custody evaluator 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.

Follow the money to harming children - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part VIII

Anyone who has ever been intimately involved in the divorce industry is aware of the overwhelming influence of child endangerment profiteers. The coffers of available funding “for the protection” of children is nearly as flush as the hordes of profiteers seeking to pillage that bounty at the expense of child well-being.

Those who can profit from harm to children are as diverse as the children themselves. There are advocates, conciliators, mediators and arbitrators directly involved in the trial process. Advocates include attorneys who get paid by the hour and fill the till by perpetuating litigation. Guardian ad Litems also fall into this category although their interest is to be representing the child. Parenting time coordinators may act as; conciliators by simply coordinating arrangements between parents consistent with the court's order; mediators by helping the parents reach agreement of implementing parenting time mandates; or, arbitrators by making decisions for the parents related to parenting time disputes. All of these positions can be engorged through ongoing conflict. Thus, there exist a financial incentive for these actors to perpetuate conflict and, presumably, harm to the children.

The American Bar Association has observed that research now documents the potentially devastating consequences for children when they are treated as pawns in a bitter custody dispute, including an increased likelihood of clinical depression, delinquency, truancy, and teenage pregnancy. Most researchers -- especially those who study the effects of divorce on children -- believe passionately that using the court to resolve custody issues is a mistake in all but a few cases.[fn1] It is far better, in the opinion of these researchers, for parents to negotiate their own parenting agreements, with the help of outside experts such as mediators, counselors, and lawyers on an as-needed basis. Leading judges from across the state have consistently told me that they would rather have the parents formulate their own parenting time and custody agreement, with the encouragement of a mediator if needed.

When increasing the likelihood for children to experience clinical depression, delinquency, truancy, and teenage pregnancy a much broader range of disciplines may also profit. Of immediacy are the mental health professionals [MHP] which includes counselors, therapist, clinical diagnosticians, observers and experimenters, psychologists, and psychiatrists. From the law enforcement community are police which includes street patrols and detectives. Then there are the corrections beneficiaries who are the correctional officers, probation officers, administrators, various levels of MHP's, and again, as in the original custody case, the various participants in litigation. The medical community, which is so often integrated with the psychological practitioners, has numerous beneficiaries when children suffer harm. This includes the pharmacological industry which has thrived in correlation to the increase in divorce and the infusion of influence by MHPs into our legislative and judicial fields. One of the manners in which the custody evaluation field has managed to bolster its profits is through the use of metrics lacking any objectively measurable scientific conclusions. What constitutes fitness as a parent? Ask 10 friends or random associates to identify the 10 most important aspects of parenting. You are likely to accumulate at least 40 different responses.

When a judicial officer does the same of the various MHPs involved in a contested custody case the results are similar. Yet, MHPs tend to hold much greater weight in the courtroom than you, your friends or your random co-workers who may not be parents themselves. A 1991 New York Court of Appeals decision in a custody modification case reveals this conundrum. The Court wrote:
This vigorously contested custody dispute was the subject of 13 days of trial testimony which included detailed and extensive testimony from several mental health professionals consulted by the parties both prior to and after the commencement of the instant action, as well as from a psychiatrist who conducted the court-ordered forensic evaluation of the parties and their child. Although the court-appointed psychiatrist found the wife to be the most "critically attuned parent to the needs" of the child, the expert testimony also revealed that she suffered from a personality disorder characterized by paranoid features. While we are mindful that the Supreme Court also expressed concern over the husband's lack of "hands on" parenting experience, when this deficiency is balanced against the evidence concerning the wife's psychological disorder, and her pattern of distorting the truth, it cannot be gainsaid that the Supreme Court's decision [to grant sole custody to the father] is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. (Nir v. Nir, 1991).
What took place here is a group of MHPs reaching different conclusion about the same people, in the same circumstances, in the same case. Yet through their “objective” lenses they achieved different results. This is because psychological evaluations – and thus custody evaluations based upon these – are not scientific. Their conclusions cannot be replicated nor dis-proven and are therefore not scientific but are the prognostications of a mystic, astrologer or card reader. Interestingly the MHPs can be legally paid for their guesswork but similar prognosticators operating out of street side bazaars are legally restricted to operating for “entertainment purposes only.”

The divergence in opinion of child custody evaluators is due to the prominence of bias and the lack of scientifically accurate instruments of measuring parental fitness and outcomes. These bias are not directly a result of who paid for the evaluation, although that rates highly, but may be due to gender, environmental, cultural of social factors. These MHPs have long been well aware of the fact that their field lacks validity, objectivity and consensus.

Underwager and Wakefield addressed this lack of validity by evaluators using accumulated clinical experience and interview processes. “Although the law recognizes experience as a basis for an opinion, any person, purporting to be a scientist, who advances an opinion based on experience alone has abandoned scientific knowledge. It is unethical for a psychologist to state an opinion based on experience alone (Dawes, 1989). The law also places heavy emphasis on personal interviews. The scientific psychologist knows that one of the most solidly established facts in psychology is that statistical, actuarial approaches based on valid and reliable measurements are superior to clinical interviews alone (Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989; Einhorn & Hogarth, 1986; Gambrill, 1990; Garb, 1989; Kleinmuntz, 1990). This is hard for many mental health professionals to accept since it seems to each of us that our own brilliant insights should be better than what a $3.95 calculator can produce. Unfortunately, the data are contrary to that perception.”[fn2]

With regard to the neutrality of the evaluator, the custody guidelines for the American Psychological Association state, "The psychologist should be impartial regardless of whether he or she is retained by the court or by a party to the proceedings." Clearly in the Moore v Moore case as I have demonstrated through the evidence Child Advocates, Inc., although enjoined to the case by the court has shown extreme bias in this case.

Child Advocates, Inc., was appointed by the court which could give one reason to believe, on its face, that their representations will be unbiased, objective and flavoured by neutrality. But that is not their mission. The MHPs operate on a for profit basis and just like any other business profits are derived through margin – the difference between what a customer pays and the cost of the goods or services provided. An efficient way to grow profits is to increase sales which keeping fixed costs – advertising, rents, subscriptions, continuing education – constant or increasing at a rate less than sales. This is what MHPs do collectively. Think of them not as competitors but as rivals.

Around me Indiana University and Purdue University carry on an athletic rivalry while maintaining a joint campus in Indianapolis. The essence of a rivalry is the closeness of competition and the lack of clear supremacy between the two opponents. If either Indiana or Purdue were to win their annual match 10 years in a row in which the scores were completely humiliating to the defeated team the rivalry would cease to exist in the mind of fans. Attendance, gate receipts, concessions, souvenir sales and philanthropic bequests to the representative institutions would surely decrease.

The MHPs operate in a similar way. By not providing clear and objective criteria and analysis in which outcomes are easily predictable the MHPs keep the participants guessing and seeking a “rematch” when undesired results are propounded upon the court.

But what about the altruistic child custody evaluators who, in their hearts, hold the best interest of the children as sacred and are not willing to compromise that position for profit? Fresh out of graduate school and entering the evaluation field this foray promises life fulfillment and financial security. This promising young evaluator goes through a year of assessing parents and the child custody battle scenarios presented and then provides an objective analysis to the court. In his second year this fledgling evaluator is still brimming with personal satisfaction and visions of a bright future. He has attained what he considers to be a perfect record, finding for the party who hired him in half of the case and against in half of the cases, which appears to reflect his absolute neutrality. While outstanding in the game from which it is derived, batting .500 in the legal realm is not satisfactory to the lawyers representing the person hiring the evaluator.

With this “poor record” becoming well-known throughout family law attorney circles he soon finds himself on the opposite end of the demand spectrum such as the hired guns like Richard Lawlor. Lawlor participated in child custody evaluations for many years. He would base his findings on his financial interests regardless of the impact on the well-being of children.

This is the scheme of the child custody evaluators and other MHP's summoned to provide their intuitions and guesswork to the courts in the name of science. They do so for their personal financial gain. Whether they are funded by the litigating parties, the juvenile justice system, court fees or through private contributions – such as those that support Child Advocates Inc. – their interest are not guided by the child's best interest but by perpetuating the conflict and their involvement. Increasing sales is the name of their game.

Those financial sponsors of Child Advocates Inc. have a common link – they prosper when litigation continues and children suffer. In the upcoming segments I will present background information on each and will include their complete and unedited response, if any, to requests for comment.

[1] A Judge’s Guide: Making Child-Centered Decisions In Custody Cases, Second Edition, 2008. ABA Center On Children And The Law.
[2] Psychological Evaluations You Need for Trial: What They Can and Cannot Do, Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield

If you need assistance in refuting an Indiana child custody evaluator 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.