Likely you have been exposed to the concept of willpower through medical discourse. Unlikely is that you have been engaged in a child custody strategy that invokes a basis in willpower. Child custody matters are generally directed based upon legal precepts or concepts of parental fitness. However, that limited focus may greatly inhibit, prospectively possible or rightfully due, positive outcomes. The antecedent to those I contend is willpower. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
In explaining this proposition I will begin by examining closely the concept of willpower. Willpower simply defined is "control exerted to do something or restrain impulses." In common usage willpower is assigned to the mental exercise of accomplishing a goal through tenancy - pushing on even when one doesn't feel up to it or resisting the temptation of an immediate desire.
The assignment of blame or causes to obesity provides a model that embodies the application of willpower. Geneticists have now demonstrated to us that contrary to common perceptions that genetics -- heredity -- is to blame for obesity that body weight is actually controlled by willpower.
Numerous studies have clearly demonstrated a link between weight and genetics. This includes mono-zygotic twins separated by adoption who, although raised by different non-genetically linked parents, exhibit similar body fat measures. This is not causal though. People who may have resistance to Leptin -- a satiety hormone -- may perpetually feel a sense of nutritional hunger. This hunger does not reflect an actual nutritional or caloric deficiency. Their bodies will still react in the same to the weight maintenance equation of calories processed less calories expended equals calorie balance. Thus, they have a predisposition to obesity. Some people will insist that obese persons who have Leptin deficiency do not lack willpower but are instead the victims of genetics. This clearly violates the definition of willpower. Willpower includes the tenacity to suppress an urge. For those who have Leptin deficiency the urge to eat does not shut off thus the willpower to overcome that must be greater than it is for those without that genetic error.
The necessary willpower for these people to overcome the incessant urge to eat could seem daunting and an exercise in futility. If attention was refocused to awareness of nutritional sufficiency and willpower was directed to understanding biofeedback, such as the relationship between confusion or aggression and nutrient deficiencies, then weight could more successfully be modulated.
This is the manner in which parents can improve their child custody positions. An essential strategy using willpower is to modulate impulses. It is the impulses which usually undermine a child custody case. None moreso than when the impulse acted upon leads to violence or threatening actions.
Traditional methods of coping using willpower come from the admonitions to "count to ten" or "bite your tongue" of which both are often ineffectual. A better approach using that methodology is to do some mathematical calculations or ask yourself "what next? if the impulse is expressed. These actions take brain activity from the amygdala - the emotional center - to the cortex - the control center where rational thought prevails.
Through cognitive behavioural therapy it is the emotional response which can be modulated thereby undermining potential emotionally triggered outburst. This is where willpower takes on a significant role.
In If this offends you then your child custody case may have a problem I have previously written about the lack of objectivity in what is offensive. There I said, "Similar to the aphorism that beauty is in the eye of the beholder the same holds true for offensiveness. The infelicity of an expression lies entirely with the listener." That is to say that an act or expression can only be perceived as such if the observer has chosen to find it offensive. The bases for the perception may be ones culture, station, or experiences which colour the lens of perception.
Whether one chooses to analyze these factors and account for their contribution to an emotional inducement is taking an action. The decision to not act is an action just as its positive counterpart. This is why the excuse "my emotions got the best of me" is invalid. Emotional responses are based upon the decision to have that response. If emotions controlled us then we would nearly all be dead save those of us who effectively thwart an attempt or are set upon by an incompetent attacker. One study on homicide revealed that 98% of the randomly selected participants recalled at least one specific incident of wanting to kill someone of which many included planning thoughts. I think 2% had a memory dysfunction or couldn't recognize the impulse.
Imagine that you are being told, "You suck at parenting!". Examine your feelings or emotions in response to this. Now imagine it is the other parent of your child saying that in response to your decision concerning medical treatment of the child. Rate your emotional response. Likely you experienced a change in your response.
Now imagine that you are reading a magazine article about education in which the author quotes an advocate who says, "to those parents who don't insist upon their children that homework is completed I say this to them; 'You suck at parenting!'." Rate your emotional response to that. Again, you likely experienced a change in your response. I suspect that this time it was modulated downward.
This is because context was applied to the statement. Within the context is a value component. That is, we generally apply a value to the statement based upon the complete source of the utterance. The greater the value assigned to that source the higher the degree of our emotional response.
When one high conflict parent allows the other parent to elicit an adverse reaction through an emotionally charged utterance this is generally a paradox. By and large high conflict parents are embattled in conflict because they have devalued the need for or contributions of the others parent. Yet, high value is often attributed to their utterances which then elicit a charged reaction. If that person is not valued then why are the opinions of that person given greater weight?
Primarily it is because one has not elected to change his or her internalized reactions to or scale of emotional triggers. With a former spouse or similar partner this is compounded through the emotional baggage or the residual emotional effects of the relationship. An example of an internalized trigger can be found in some low or common cultures where males are expected to defend their honour. If one male challenges another as not exhibiting the traits of manhood the challenged male may puff up high chest and engage the other in hostile banter which may escalate to a physical altercation. Conversely, a high culture challenged male may simply dismiss the remark as coming from a low culture imbecile and go about his business. However, that response may be internalized from a high culture upbringing although it can be learned.
While behaviourism postulates that behaviour is determine by one's culture I feel that it is clearly not absolute as Biological Determinists contend. In all aspects of life there is an element of free will. Free will is scaled across domains and from person to person. One common area in which I counsel people is the domain of diet which provides a good example of behaviourism's elements.
A person born into a family that consumes garbage masquerading as food will likely internalize dietary habits that favour unhealthy choices. This person would have a great degree of free will to choose between hot dogs or bologna. The free will to choose between a sandwich of a processed meat product on white bread made from bleached flour topped with a slice of cheese food or to choose a fresh garden salad topped by sliced almonds, blueberries, and chicken strips would be expressed to a lesser degree. Further down the line would be if this person descended from a society that had little opportunity to hunt animals and only recently adopted farming techniques may have a penchant for sweets. He would be more biologically determined to appreciate high calorie sugary foods than low calorie vegetables.
This person could be satisfied with and appreciate an optimal diet consisting only of food. However, it would take him or her a greater degree of willpower than it would for someone raised on a diet modeled after the FDA's food pyramid which was politically constructed to favour the meat and dairy industries.
While the basis of the will to consume an optimal diet is the goal of attaining wellness the basis of the will to get a better child custody arrangement is parcel to the goal of attaining a healthful outcome for your child.
There are numerous facets to the willpower exerted that will be necessary to achieve this outcome. I am not going to explore each of these in depth here but instead am going to provide a brief synopsis of each.
Acceptance of the circumstances - You may not have been the party who initiated delegating decision making authority regarding the upbringing of your child to the state but if a court is involved then that is the way it is. There are numerous ancillary players in this venue who may provide input to the state regarding you and the well-being of your child. Their opinions may carry greater weight than yours. Accept it.
Tenacity - The pursuit of a healthful outcome for your child is a lifelong commitment whether that be at the personal level or through the intermediaries of the state. You involvement does not end when you pass on your records and evidence to an attorney. Nor when a final decree is issued [modification is built into the law for a reason]. Nor when your child is emancipated. The commitment to achieving a healthful outcome for your child is lifelong.
Pride is a demon - Suck it up. What you may feel is just, your personal authority, or respectful to you carries little, if any, weight in a court. Here is an axiom of law; the person who goes into court to prove a point loses. A child custody conflict nearly always requires a change in attitude and shedding some of the internalized concepts of parental authority.
Cooperation - This is not, in simplistic terms, following the rules or orders. An operation involves the steps to attaining a result. While preparing a meal is an operation let me use the common reference to operation as a surgical procedure to exemplify this point. Surgery is a cooperative effort among an array of actors in the process. While each is assigned a particular domain and is practiced in his or her processes they do not perform their tasks in rigidly defined roles or sequences. They each ply their skills as the circumstances warrant in conjunction with the others in the operating room. They cooperate without contention over job description, compensation, or their personal feelings for each other in an effort to attain a positive outcome for the patient.
Mindfulness - Mindfulness is raising awareness. To be mindful is to be aware of one's environment, feelings, and actions. It is attributing cause to actions preemptively. A mindful eater does not walk past a candy dish and grab a few pieces and plunk them into his gullet. A mindful eater first asses whether his body has a particular nutrient deficiency, whether that deficiency would be relieved by the specific candy and in what amount, whether there is a better way to achieve the same result, and what psychological impetus drives the arm to reach for the candy. Actions pertaining to the child custody action involving your child should be viewed in the same manner. A mindful person does not pick up her child at 6:00pm for parenting time because the court order and guidelines say to do so. She does it for much deeper reasons.
Theodore Roosevelt articulated a bit more verbosely that nothing worth doing is easy. I contend that quite the opposite is true. Again I will exemplify a point using food. Nearly every client that I have coached regarding diet has quipped to me that it is difficult to eat well. That fallacious opinion changes when eating is given the appropriate context. Eating well is incredibly easy. It does not involve pausing while climbing stairs, being irritable, having memory and focus problems, making and going to medical appointments, financial burdens of drugs, medical providers, and prolonged absences from employment, lethargy, loss of use of primary organs, amputation of a foot, and what I feel is most important - continuing to be a loving, supportive parent after premature death.
It takes tremendous willpower to perpetuate a feud to no end, to focus on catching every peccadillo committed by the other parent, to document, marshal evidence, strategize, and continue to pump out money to attorneys for the next battle in an ongoing war, to analyze every act or utterance by the other parent to determine whether it can be viewed as an affront to one's dignity or rights, and to shove to the recesses of one's mind that the child is suffering the consequences of these selfish actions.
It's not that most people don't have the willpower. I think I have illuminated that here through the few examples of the exhaustive efforts and tenacity people have demonstrated to achieving their will be it eating garbage made to appear as food or trying to punish the other parent. What is often needed is for that will to be redirected toward more positive outcomes.
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, July 17, 2017
Achieving Willpower and changing your Child Custody arrangement
Monday, March 17, 2014
Driving Children To School, Teaching Risk Aversion - Another harm to Children
15 March 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Parents are reticent to admit to harming their children and are less inclined to accept responsibility for doing such. While we possess an innate passion to protect our children the so-called rational mind often works studiously to defeat such an instinct. I have previously written about some of these in postings including Inducing premature puberty in girls - precocious puberty, Most Parents Encourage Sexual Abuse of Their Children
, and Self-Imposed Parental Alienation.
In a more thorough paper that I plan to write I will be devoting a portion to parents inducing depression into their children. But for today, I write about the simple act of delivering children to school in a vehicle and the complex web of adversities that it produces.
In 1969, the year of my birth, the percent of children walking to school was forty-eight. By 2009 that had dropped to just thirteen. What I am going to propose here is not that this decline in children walking to school is the cause of the various adversities that I will explore here. Rather, I present this as one of the factors in an overarching shift in parenting attitudes and activities that are connected to childhood adversities through causation or correlation.
The issue I address, children being delivered to schools in vehicles, is only a symptom of the larger and broader series of parenting behaviours that are choking children's development. The results are immediately observable in some instances, such as obesity, while other effects may not present until adulthood. It in now established that internalising behaviours in children may be linked with parenting styles that might not have traditionally been assessed, such as overprotectiveness.[fn1] The rationalization for the detrimental actions which rest under the umbrella of overprotectiveness is that children are vulnerable. Use of the term ‘vulnerable’ can be a good way of denying children the opportunity to take risks.
Risk engagement is an important resource through which children also learn from their own mistakes. This is a necessary learning process when children engage with their personal health and safety.[fn2] However, as with the divorce industry which harms children for profit so does the industry of fear. When confronted by sensational calls to protect 'vulnerable' children from a myriad of 'dangers' look to the motivation of those making the claims. The connections may not be clear. Large media conglomerates that control television and magazines suppress holistic and natural medical practices to perpetuate harm. Their motivation? Flip through a magazine and look for full page advertisements for drugs. Pay attention while watching television if you choose to engage in that activity.
Not allowing children to take risks associated with walking to school is like not allowing them to be exposed to chicken-pox: when exposure doesn't come until adulthood it is much more likely to lead to death. Children must be provided with knowledge about reasonable dangers, learn to be observant, and given the opportunity to employ their skills rather than be ferried around everywhere in a 4x4 (because hey they're safer in that than in the small car) because of parents overwrought with anxiety and laziness. Suddenly chucking them out when they're 18 and finding they haven't a streetwise bone in their body is catastrophe waiting to happen.
Children need to be allowed to take risks in order to develop ‘risk competence’. Most fatal accidents to children result from them not having learned, or not being allowed to learn, how to look after themselves’.[fn3]
Current child abductions in the US annually are 17 per 100,000. Only about 100 children (a fraction of 1%) are kidnapped each year in the stereotypical stranger abductions you hear about in the news. About half of these 100 children come home.[fn4]
Moreover, only 40% of these stranger abductions take place on the street. The average annual stranger abductions was estimated to be 147 per year for the years 1976-1987[fn5]. So while the population has increased the unadjusted number has declined. In the United States during 2011, more than 650 children ages 12 years and younger died as occupants in motor vehicle crashes,[fn6] and more than 148,000 were injured.[fn7] A staggering 67,000 children died on average from the years 2000-2005 from unintentional injuries.[fn8]
Clearly the real danger, unintentional injury, is being neglected while children are being placed at greater risk of death by motor vehicle than from the perceived risk – stranger abductions. Children need risk-taking. They need to have the opportunity to build risk competence. The prevalent concept of children as immature, needy, and dependent must change or we risk turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. We already know that children under two years of age show that from their early tactile experiences that ‘risky’ activities is an integral part of their drive to extend their physical prowess and thus their independence.[fn9]So next time you pile the youngsters into the car to take them to school consider whether you are giving them the opportunity to develop risk competence, endangering them through the hazards of vehicular travel, and whether the expense of money and time is inducing stress in you and a subsequent hostile environment for your children.
Notes
[1] Hudson, J.L. and Rapee, R.M. (2002) ‘Parent–child interactions in clinically anxious
children and their siblings’, Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 548–55
[2]Christensen, P. & Mikkelsen, M.R. (2008). Jumping off and being careful: children's strategies of risk management in everyday life. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30(1), 112-130.
[3] Baillie, M. (2005). ... And by comparison. Cardiff: Adventure Activities Licensing Authority.
[4] National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway Children -- 2003 as cited by the Polly Claas Foundation
[5] Finkelhor, et al. The Abduction of Children by Strangers and non-Family Members, June 1992 Journal of Interpersonal Violence, p. 234
[6] CDC. Child Passenger Safety: Buckle Up Every Age, Every Trip Vital Signs. [2014 Feb 4].
[7] CDC. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System [online]. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (producer). [2011 Sept 30].
[8] CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System
[9] Stephenson, A. (2003). Physical risk-taking – dangerous or endangered? Early Years, 23(8), 35-43.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Monday, March 10, 2014
Understanding when a child tells you that you are doing wrong by alienating the other parent - Parental Alienation
10 March 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Over the weekend I performed a forensic assessment of a boy who is age 7. He was presented with “difficulties in cooperation, completing assignments, and being attentive in class.” His parents have been involved in years of ongoing litigation. The mother relocated the children to another town, changed their school, and has alienated them from the father. The father sought my assistance in the discipline and schooling problems.
In doing an assessment of a child this age I ask that the child write a story as instructed as follows:
Write a story about what it would be like if you were the President of the United States. Who would work in the White House with you and what would you have your parents do as jobs? What rules would you establish and what would happen to people who didn't follow your rules?
This boy's story revealed some very telling information.
~ [child] wanted his White House to be located halfway between the homes of his mother and father.
~ The job for his father was to be a helper or advisor to him.
~ The job for his mother was to be “cleaning up dog poo”
~ The punishment for people who would not do what [child] wanted could escalate to having to “clean up horse poop with their hands.”
This boy clearly wants to be close to both parents. He obviously wants the counsel of the father who is very actively involved in the development of the child. The similarity between the job for mother and punishment for those who do not do as the boy wishes clearly indicates a hostility toward the mother. This is reflective of what I wrote about in Self-Imposed Parental Alienation in November of last year. In that I wrote;
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.
Children are not blind to the dynamics of parental conflict. Throughout my years of observing a staggering amount of high conflict cases, often with elements of parental alienation, I have seen the result most often be the child turning against the instigating parent.
For those who would target the other parent in a programme of alienation it is worth considering whether the gain you may achieve from some type of emotional satisfaction derived from the belief that you may be winning the affections of the child is worth damaging the long-term relationship.
For those of you who are the targeted parent this should be able to provide to you some inspiration to parent the best you can, not retaliate, and enjoy a stronger relationship with your child in the future.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Why some Non Custodial Parents should be and how not to get help changing that
07 March 2014
To: Stephanie - Stuart Showalter Scheduler [scheduler@stuartshowalter.com]
It is important to note that Mr Swindells was asked to provide his attorney number which he did not. His response relates to being asked by my scheduler to submit an application along with the initial $150 consultation fee. Here is the information for attorneys as it appears on my website. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
I state it on my business card: Child custody decisions are not about the law, but are judgments based upon parenting skills and behaviours. Get on the path to making yours optimal – now! I suggest that this is done by harmonizing finances, physical and mental health, spirituality, diet and lifestyle which are essential to achieving a better custody decision and parent-child relationship.
Essentially it all begins with attitude and a willingness to accept responsibility.
From the hundreds of requests I get per year seeking my assistance many likely deserve and would benefit from my services but I am limited in my time and therefore have established an application process. I also do these blog postings and public policy advising so as to be able to assist the greatest number of children possible.
Each year though I encounter one of those truly ungrateful, greedy, inconsiderate NCPs who were aptly designated as such and really show their asses to me. It didn't take any spring thaw or sweltering summer sun to finally get this year's best. Consider this email I received in February.
From: Tim Swindells [timswindells@yahoo.com]
Re: Stuart Showalter Child Custody Life Coaching
On February 3, 2014 at 7:51 PM Tim Swindells [timswindells@yahoo.com] wrote:
Dear Stephanie:
So much for truth in advertising on his website as to a "free" initial consultaion. $150.00 is NOT free.
This lie will be posted to all father's, and divorce groups I belong to on Facebook, as well as the individual who referred you'all to me. The public needs to know the truth, plus the fact that it is obvious by your email he is not nationally available in any economical sense. He is simply taking advantage of people's misfortunes just to turn a buck.
T.Swindells
Attorney
ATTORNEYS
As a child custody coach Mr Showalter uses his vast child custody knowledge to help you achieve more favourable results for your client. He will also increase your productivity, reduce your workload and lower costs for your clients. He can help you formulate trial strategy, negotiate settlements, draft documents, conduct research, prepare witnesses,assist your clients in understanding the process and provide opinion testimony about your client.
Through his vast experience he can provide to you knowledge about the temperament, practices and expectations of numerous judges or opposing attorneys. He even goes so far as to advise on what to expect from the other parent based upon his or her religious or cultural background. If an extra set of hands is needed during trial or detailed note taking then you should consider using Mr Showalter for that also.
Recently Mr Showalter provided input to the appellate attorney representing Craig Scarberry, the Anderson Indiana man who lost custody of his children because he changed his religious preference to that of agnostic. In the appeal of that judgment it was Mr Showalter's input that prompted the attorney to file a motion which resulted in the Indiana Court of Appeals issuing a Stay of the judgment. Mr Scarberry's children were then returned to him.
Please contact Mr Showalter directly to schedule a no-fee initial consultation to discuss the services he offers.[emphasis added]
Nowhere do I offer free services to parents. Instead I ask for this.
SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION NOW
Mr Showalter limits his assistance to only those parents whom he believes he can provide the most effective assistance or whose children are at the greatest risk. He therefore requires that everyone have a referral and complete an application for services prior to deciding if he will provide assistance. Please contact his scheduler if you have additional queries.
CHILD CUSTODY COACHING APPLICATION [PDF]
PRIVACY POLICY [PDF]
Mr Showalter requires that you have a referral to receive services. This can be any attorney, judge, health provider or other practitioner. Referrals are also accepted from your elected representatives.
As you can see from his email, Mr Swindell attempts to defraud me by claiming to be an attorney to get a free explanation of my services. When his ruse fails he unloads with his virulent attack on my character. This is the essence of the types of behaviours that judges pick up on which justify a rational child custody and parenting time order that protects children from being subjected to this type of parent. His bullying behaviour based upon his feeling that he is entitled to free services and that anyone who doesn't conform to his wishes is going to be unjustly maligned by him. That is not the proper course of action to take when seeking the assistance of someone. It's especially unwise to demonstrate this behaviour to a judge or anyone else who has input on a child custody decision.
To those who are truly motivated by seeking the best interest of their children I gladly accept applications. To those who would seek to exploit my services in an effort to bully other parties to the action and inflict emotional harm on children don't bother applying because I am going to have you figured out before you know it.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
In His Own Words - Bill Levin: 2014 Candidate for the Indiana House of Representatives
26 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Once in awhile a candidate comes along who appears so outside the norm that you have to ask yourself, is this the approach that is needed for more effective government? Afterall, the majority of Americans agree that government, as is the current norm, is not being responsive to the common people. So when I came across Bill Levin who is a candidate for the Indiana House of Representatives in District 96 I wondered Is this the approach that is needed for more effective government? So I interviewed Bill about his platform, ideology and the impact those would have upon children.
I first wanted to know what lead to Bill's decision to join the race to be a representative in the Indiana House. For him it was lack of effective representation either the Republicans or Democrats. That both put forth legislation intended to satisfy their respective parties but not respect Hoosiers. His platform has three major planks being gun safety, equal rights for all people, and marijuana legalization.
As he explains because we are an agricultural state Hoosiers should have access to the benefits of cannabis. The marijuana plant is useful as a building material, has health benefits including its use as an essential oil, and is a stress reliever. As marijuana use has come into play in numerous child custody battles in which I am involved I seek to find the impact on the child. Show me the harm or benefit. It was interesting that Bill mentioned stress relief and then connected that to abuse of children. His claim that “people who use marijuana don't [physically] abuse their children as much as those who are alcohol and prescription pain killer users” is consistent with my anecdotal evidence. People who are less stressed are less likely to abuse their children.
The opposing point of view claims that marijuana is harmful to children because its use is associated with crime, gangs and is a gateway to more severe forms of drug abuse. It has generally been my observation that the most prolific gateway drug is alcohol. Levin noted that this report by the Obama administration in 2010 dispelled the gateway myth.
FlexForm and Elkhart County based automotive parts manufacturer must import the cannabis that it uses because Indiana law forbids Hoosiers from growing the plants for use here. Thus Indiana lawmakers have ensured that money is flowing out of the state that should be supporting agricultural operations here as Levin would have it.
A bill authored by Senator Richard Young that would allow Indiana farmers to grow industrial hemp crops was heard in the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources which voted 7-0 in favor of the bill on Friday. Levin says that it will easily pass through the general assembly and be presented to the Governor Pence who he is confident will sign it into law. However when it comes to legalizing marijuana Governor Pence has taken a strong stance in opposition saying, “I don’t support the legalization of marijuana, and that’s been my position for a long time and will continue to be.” Former Republican state legislator Tom Knollman who had to resign his position because of progressive MS has objected to Pence's stance saying, “The art of being a good public official is being able to listen to both sides of an issue! I served as a Republican as a representative and am very proud of that. When the Governor refuses to look at both sides he loses my vote. I am sure my name is mud in his administration but I tried to always remember I am my brothers keeper!"
HJR3 seemed to capture most of the headlines and attention this year. So I asked Bill where he stands on adding the current statutory scheme defining marriage into the Indiana Constitution. Quite simply his response was, “I think gays should have the same right.” He expanded upon that by explaining that marriage is a contract that is often temporary in nature, If people of the same gender wish to subject themselves to the same contractual situation as those of opposite genders then they should be allowed. If two people regardless of gender want to establish that contractual arrangement then he wishes for them, “all the joy and love in the world.”
I asked about his thoughts on the Second Sentence which would have banned the State from recognizing not marital relationships similar to marriage. After a moment pondering his initial response had me laughing. Upon further explanation it is matters like Second Sentence that reflect what he had earlier described about both parties putting forth legislation intended to satisfy their respective parties but not respect all Hoosiers. He also acknowledged that while supporters of marriage claim that marriage provides stable relationships in which to rear children that they can be fleeting.
The last position I touched upon was gun education and safety. Levin wants it taught in every grade school. He noted that countries and jurisdictions where gun ownership is mandatory have lower crime rates and less gun assaults than the United States overall. One reason I suspect is because gun education is also part of the compulsory gun ownership process. Bill believes that teaching respect for guns and realistically demonstrating their impact can reduce their use in ways that mimic pop culture where the true impact is sanitized. Gun debates are always a hot topic but I think he takes a pragmatic approach to the issue. It's neither in support of gun rights or restrictions on people having guns but acknowledges that guns are part of our culture. They are a way of life. Educating children about guns may be a way to save their lives. It is this pragmatic approach that embodies his philosophy on government.
When it comes to the primary role of government Bill Levin feels it should be to provide “functional gears that make the cities or state work properly.” He wants to do his part in realizing that philosophical goal of government by putting forth bills that are "realistic, that are not party favoured, and are leaning toward benefiting Hoosiers."
People who want to do their part to help get Bill Levin elected to the Indiana General Assembly can do so by checking his Facebook page daily. As with any campaign he also needs supporters to donate to his fund-raising efforts which will help buy advertising. Supporters can go to his Fundrazr page to make a donation on-line. Finally, if you have a group of friends or associates that you feel would support the Bill Levin for House platform then consider hosting a meet 'n' greet with Bill at your home or business. Contact Bill through his Facebook page for details.
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.
