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. 
Monday, March 10, 2014
Understanding when a child tells you that you are doing wrong by alienating the other parent - Parental Alienation
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 19, 2014
Successfully mediating a high conflict Indiana child custody case which has been repeatedly contested
18 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Yesterday was a great day. In what has become on off my top five most litigated cases the parties are in at least a brief respite after reaching accord on all outstanding issues. This case first gained worldwide attention when the Madison County Indiana judge then presiding over the case ruled that the father was unfit to parent because he became agnostic in his religious beliefs. I quickly had that matter resolved by having the Indiana Court of Appeals issue a Stay. Ultimately the unlawful order was set aside.
The mother continued to litigate and most recently sought to have father's parenting time reduced to one half hour per month supervised. Although she actually wanted his parental rights terminated. Drugs/guns Shortly before that I had written about Self Imposed Parental Alienation but apparently she hadn't read it or did care. Additionally, she had recently alleged in a Petition for an Order of Protection that father had confined her at the police station and she was afraid to be there with him around. Multiple police officers, school officials, and an employer were ready and willing to appear at the upcoming hearing on her temporary protective order. But as that and about a dozen other filings from both parents were included in the settlement which included dismissing all outstanding matters, it won't be heard.
I am an ardent supporter of mediation even when it seems hopeless. In this case it was court ordered because of the overwhelming number of pending issues. After watching the mother go on the offensive for four years, which included bringing her now husband to a parenting time exchange to physically attack the father, I didn't expect much cooperation. The father initially thought it would be a perfunctory waste of time but he said “I was pleasantly surprised and hope that its a new path that leads to some peace in our children's lives.” I was likewise stunned at the culmination of over five hours of negotiation. This mother had gone on record in 2010 saying she had no intention of being conciliatory for the benefit of the children. Yet in the end the father got parenting time on an additional day each week, the 2013 IPTG implemented and other benefits that he sought. “I am satisfied with it as long as she will follow it” he says.
The mother may be likely to do so after obtaining new counsel last year. “Aaron Freeman [attorney for mother] seemed like he was pushing for mediation.” That is in clear contrast to Mr Anthony Lawrence who rebuked three prior mediation request but did dump mother as a client in 2013. The proper selection of or omission of an attorney may be the greatest facilitator of mediation. As father noted “the people who go in with the idea that I am not going to bend could benefit by having an attorney to help convince them to compromise.” But as for father who was ready to compromise and had previously sought mediation multiple times he did not “see a need for an attorney at all.” Although he did concede that there was “no way I would have felt comfortable doing it without you.”
As a mediator myself, who specializes in high conflict parenting, I seek clarity and precision in the agreements so that each party knows exactly what they are to do. This also gives the court greater power to enforce the agreement as an ambiguous order in unenforceable.[1] In a section that the attorney mediator had prepared about extra curricular activities it made reference to parents attending the children's “games” to which I requested that “performances, recitals and any other activities consistent with the spirit of this section” be included. In a hostile parenting situation one parent could clearly raise the issue that a child's performance in the arts is not a “game.” There was also a provision that required the parties to dismiss their respecting protective orders. As the orders had already been issued by a judge, I requested that the language be changed to the parties shall each petition the court to dismiss the order because only the judge may dismiss the order.[2] Father was appreciative that the “order is more specific, it has less room for interpretation” which is critical to making the mediation worthwhile.
Overall the father felt that “it was worthwhile” Although he didn't get what he had on his agenda going in he did achieve the most important goal of mediation as he articulated. “Its not what I wanted but it is more than I had. It is the pain of mediation, we both don't get what we want but both sides need to give and take for the benefit of the children.”
For anyone who is involved in a highly litigious or high conflict post marital parenting relationship or any other contested child custody case I strongly suggest trying mediation. It may not get you to exactly where you want to be but as this father realized, “I walked away feeling like this is a start.”
Notes
[1] In order to be held in contempt for failing to comply with a court order, a party must have willfully disobeyed the order. The order must have been so clear and certain that there could be no question as to what the party must do, or not do, and so there could be no question regarding whether the order is violated. A party may not be held in contempt for failing to comply with an ambiguous or indefinite order . . .
Bandini v. Bandini, 935 N.E.2d 253, 264-65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
[2] IC 34-26-5-12 Dismissal
Sec. 12. If a petitioner:
(1) files a written request for dismissal with a court; or
(2) makes an oral request on the record to dismiss the case in open court;
the court shall without delay or any conditions dismiss the case without prejudice. [emphasis added]
As added by P.L.133-2002, SEC.56.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Being an alcoholic doesn't boost child custody chances
What may seem obvious to most people didn't seem so to Robin Ann Parks who appealed the order transferring custody of her children to their Paternal grandparents because of her alcohol abuse.
The marriage of Parks and Cary Grube was dissolved in 2006. The father was awarded custody of the parties four children, ages 10-20 years now. In 2007 the parties agreed to modify custody transferring custody of the oldest child to the mother.
It is undisputed that despite being the noncustodial parent, Parks remained very active in the Children's lives.
Cary Grube unexpectedly died at his residence in late 2008. Parks was called to the home that night by the eldest child living there. She didn't stay long and left the children with the paternal grandparents. The children and grandparents believed that she was drunk at that time.
Cary's will stipulated that his parents, the Grube's, would have custody of the children. Following probate Parks filed a petition for custody of the children. The trial court heard evidence and denied her petition. She then appealed.
During these hearings, evidence of Parks's history of alcohol abuse was presented. Specifically, Parks was arrested twice for driving under the influence of alcohol. In addition, Parks's former friend and neighbor, Milissa Woolwine, testified that she used to care for the Children because Parks was intoxicated and that Parks would “come home drunk with a stranger” during her parenting time with the Children.
Similarly, Parks's former boyfriend, Kevin Hembree, testified that Parks was intoxicated “a hundred out of a hundred and twenty” days that she lived with him in 2007. During an in camera interview two children stated that they believed their mother was intoxicated at a birthday party for one of them, which occurred after Cary had died.
Moreover, pages from the journals of the two children were presented which noted that when Parks is intoxicated, she yells at them, calls them names, and tells them that she does not want to see them again. One child wrote that when she is on the school bus, she prays that her mother is not intoxicated when she gets home.
Parks' sole argument on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision to award custody of the Children to the Grubes.
In custody disputes between natural parents and third parties, a presumption exists that it is in the best interest of the child to be placed in the custody of the natural parent. K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453, 458 (Ind. 2009).
Nevertheless, third parties can rebut this presumption by presenting clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child will be served by placing the child in the custody of the third party. In re Guardianship of B.H., 770 N.E.2d 283, 287 (Ind. 2002).
Our Supreme Court has stated that the issue is not merely the "fault" of the natural parent. Rather, it is whether the important and strong presumption that a child's interests are best served by placement with the natural parent is clearly and convincingly overcome by evidence proving that the child's best interests are substantially and significantly served by placement with another person.
When making an argument to the Court of Appeals I feel that it is important not to be annoying or petty. Park's failed to do this. In her brief she argued that she had received counseling following her second drunk driving arrest but had never been treated for "alcoholism". The court had this to say in response, "Parks' argument that we find error on this basis is a request that we engage in senseless hair-splitting, which we decline to do."
One thing I encounter in custody modification proceedings is parties attempting to use circumstances prior to the last custody proceeding. Indiana Code section 31-17-2-21(c) provides that “The court shall not hear evidence on a matter occurring before the last custody proceeding between the parties unless the matter relates to a change in the factors relating to the best interests of the child as described by section 8 . . . of this chapter.”
However, as the trial court did in this case a court may consider an ongoing pattern of activities that affect the child's best interest. So even though the 2003 and 2005 arrest for driving while intoxicated occurred prior to the 2007 custody modification, there was evidence presented that the mother was still abusing alcohol and had been doing so for an on-going basis dating back to at least 2003. Thus, it was proper to consider the pre-modification actions.
Finally, Park's argued that the trial court impermissibly relied upon the testimony and wishes of the children to live with their grandparents. Parks is correct that it is a "longstanding rule that a change in the child's wishes, standing alone, cannot support a change in custody.” Williamson v. Williamson, 825 N.E.2d 33, 40 (Ind. Ct. App 2005).
However, Indiana Code section 31-17-2-8(3) states that “The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age,” is a relevant factor when determining a child's best interests. Ultimately the court must make a decision based upon the best interest of the child but the court may, and should, consider the wishes of the child.
I am a parent who doesn't have custody of my child, not because of any wrongdoing on my part, and can sympathize with the desires of Ms parks to have custody of her children. However, I think it is clear from the case documents that she has a significant problem with alcohol and this affects her ability to be an effective parent to her children. Quite simply the lesson to take from this is don't be a drunk and that factor wil not weigh on your suitability to have custody of your children.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
