I have long had a policy of not receiving documents prepared in Microsoft Word based upon the very sound reasons of size and compatibility issues. I also do not generate documents using MS programs because of the vast amount of computing resources that MS products use. As an example MS Works uses 97+% of the processor. From MS own support site comes this: “When you run Microsoft Works 2000 Word Processor, you may notice that CPU usage is at or near 100 percent. Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed at the beginning of this article.”
In the past few months, after loading MS software on my computer, I was struck with multiple attacks on other software that left them corrupted. I also had two hard-drives destroyed and it was confirmed by MS that their software issues were, at least, partially at fault. In the past I had a motherboard in a Compaq computer destroyed which was confirmed by Compaq to likely be a MS software related problem. In all instances it was confirmed that there were no viruses on my computers.
If you haven't been struck by malicious MS software yet it is likely only a matter of time. Microsoft is constantly working on ways to cause more damage to primary users of non MS software. That is people who do things like use Linux OS or the Firefox browser.
Just yesterday I withdrew from South University because of their policy that all assignments be submitted using the MS proprietary extension .docx. For a place that is supposed to be an institution of higher learning it is rather suspicious that South University has a requirement that students use an expensive software package of only mediocre quality and not near the level of publishing software being used in the real world. I think South University has a generous contract with MS to require that students purchase their software.
For document creation, using MS Word is such a novice and burdensome application that I just don't know people that use it. PagePlus or Open Office [MS Word clone] are all better for simple text applications. The Open Office suite is a clone of MS Word but produces much smaller file sizes, is the same application for instructional purposes and is FREE.
For actual page layouts that appear professionally done KaliNews, InDesign or Quark XPress are so much better.
For portability formats using rtf [another MS format] or pdf extensions is the better way to go. PDF is universal format created by Adobe Systems and does not require payment to view through Adobe Acrobat reader. Additionally, an important feature is that it does not display the original document differently for various users. This can be very important in making legal forms that must be identical. You can use Microsofts' .doc extension and get five different views on five different computers.
Another hazard for users of MS Word is the potential for disclosing confidential information. MS Word saves all prior versions in the file. If you redact the confidential portions of a document and then post it for public viewing it is no difficult task for a viewer to retrieve the prior saved version.
There is an excellent page titled Please Don't Send Me Microsoft Word Documents that details the reasons why you should NEVER accept an e-mail with a MS Word attachment. It includes topics such as: Microsoft Word files are a security hazard; Sending Microsoft Word files can violate your privacy; and, Microsoft Word documents are extremely large compared to other file formats. It is definitely worth reading and could save you from having your computer hardware destroyed and valuable data lost.
www.InCRA.info
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Is Microsoft damaging your computer?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Woman who used protective order to keep father away from children for two years stabbed to death
From AP newswire
BROWNSBURG, Ind. — An Indiana man arrested Monday night was accused of stabbing his estranged wife to death while his two daughters, 12 and 8, hid in a closet. Authorities said the older girl called 911 and told a dispatcher, “Daddy killed Mommy.”
Joseph L. Warnock, 41, was arrested about 9 p.m. in the same neighborhood of Brownsburg where he had once lived with his wife, Angela Warnock, 38, said Lt. Roger Call of the Hendricks County Sheriff’s Department.
The wife was found stabbed in her bed at home on Sunday night. Investigators say the couple was going through a divorce and she had a protective order requiring him to stay away from her and their daughters. The killing came two days after the wife obtained a two-year extension on the order.
Angela Warnock's use of the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act for leverage in the divorce proceedings with the father of their two daughters failed her this past weekend. On Friday she had obtained an order that would keep the father from having any further contact with his daughters for two years. In addition she had the daughters, age 8 and 12, sleeping with her. These are both signs of Parental Alienation.
Parental Alienation is damaging to the child. Instead of promoting independence, the alienating parent encourages continued dependence by the children. The parent may insist on sleeping with the child, feeding the child ("It’s easier if I do it"), and taking care of these rites of passage longer than normal child development calls for. One theory about why a mother will act this way is that when a father takes his share of joint custody is that it is like asking her to give away part of her body. One mother said, "He is going to remove my right arm and take it for the weekend." It feels like the mother has lost a profound part of who she is as a person. She feels fractured, pulled apart.
Instead of encouraging the necessary interaction with both parents some battling spouses instead choose to use the children as a weapon against the other. Keeping children away from their fathers can have significant damaging effects. Children from fatherless homes account for 63% of youth suicides, [Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census]; 71% of pregnant teenagers. [Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services]; and 71% of all high school dropouts [Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools].
Often times children are withheld from the other parent as punishment for a perceived wrong. This is commonly done through restraining orders which in the majority of cases do not even involve an allegation of violence. [False DV Allegations Cost $20 Billion] Douglas Darnell, Ph.D. Cites that a parent who physically or psychologically rescues the children when there is no threat to their safety reinforces alienation by placing in the child's mind the illusion of threat or danger. An alienator may assume that if a parent had been physically abusive with him or her, it follows that the parent will assault the child. This assumption is not always true.
This is another case that demonstrates that a Protective Order does not protect and may actually lead to the death of a parent who was otherwise not threatened. In child custody cases every effort should be made to ensure that the children maintain healthy relationships with both parents. Not doing so can not only damage the children but, as in this case, cost the alienator her life.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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. 
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Court rules innocent inmates are not entitled to exculpatory DNA evidence
In a stunning decision that goes against fundamental due process rights and the perception of liberty in the United States the United States Supreme Court has ruled that inmates do not have a due process right to access DNA test results that prove their innocence.
The case before the court concerned Alaskan William G. Osborne, who was convicted in 1994 of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a prostitute in Anchorage. Osborne had sought to do DNA testing, at his own expense, on evidence used to convict him. Although prosecutor's acknowledged that the test could confirm who actually committed the crime the State of Alaska fought vigorously to keep Osborne from having access to DNA testing of the evidence.
The Court reasoned that once someone has been convicted and sentenced to prison that DNA testing could show that the inmate was wrongly convicted and the Court should not establish a constitutional right to not be wrongly imprisoned. Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged the “unparalleled ability” of DNA testing “both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty.” However, Roberts felt that allowing the innocent to go free would be an unwelcome burden to the state.
In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Constitution’s due process clause required allowing Mr. Osborne to have access to DNA evidence in his case. “For reasons the state has been unable or unwilling to articulate,” Justice Stevens wrote, “it refuses to allow Osborne to test the evidence at his own expense and to thereby ascertain the truth once and for all.”
This ruling follows along the lines of many state court ruling in family law cases. Many states including Indiana have ruled that the danger or harm to a child in a particular custody situation is not a valid consideration for a change in that custody if the child has become accustomed to the danger or harm that is occurring.
Ultimately it is the message that would be sent to the people that compel prosecutors and judges to keep innocent people in prison or children in danger. Correcting a wrong denotes just that. That there was a wrong. If every innocent defendant was turned loose or brought back to life or if every child who was placed into harm by a judge were put back into the custody of a caring and loving parent there would be a tidal wave of relocating people. By allowing the people to see the injustices perpetrated upon them by corrupt prosecutors and judges people would see just how corrupt the court system is. This is why judges and prosecutors oppose correcting wrongs.
Unlike the majority on the court, Justices Alito, Kennedy and Thomas joined Stevens in declaring that the potential innocence of an inmate should be a challenge that the state should have to meet and the mere inconvenience to the state does not justify keeping innocent people in prison.
www.InCRA.info
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Shared Parenting Meetings with Indiana Legislators
The Indiana General Assembly met in special session on Thursday June 11, 2009 for the purpose of working on the state budget. The day started with legislators drifting into the building where most proceeded to caucus meetings. Between these sessions I was able to get some time with the legislators to discuss the upcoming session and the need for Shared Parenting legislation.
The House was scheduled to assemble at 1:00pm to consider the budget and did come to order around 1:45. About an hour later the House had adjourned following what appeared to be bitter arguments over fast tracking of the CIB bill which Bosma referred to as a gaming bill but the Democratic leader said had no gaming references in it.
Meeting with Senator Taylor - An additional meeting has been set for Thursday 18 June 2008 to draft an amendment to Indiana's paternity law which was amended by HB1511 from the 116th session. I would like to see factor four removed which states, "The interaction and interrelationship of the child with: (A) the child’s parent or parents;(B) the child’s sibling;and (C) any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interests". The factors from marriage were adopted for custody decisions in paternity actions but this factor should not apply because of the unique circumstances in some paternity actions. Often times a father was not aware of having fathered a child until such time as he or the mother files a paternity action. Unlike in divorce proceedings the father may have never had the opportunity to be involved with the child prior to the paternity action and to use that as a factor in opposing the father having custody is a bias against the child establishing contact with his or her father and does not serve the best interest of the child.
Meeting with Senator Kruse - Senator Kruse introduced SB560 in the 116th session which would have required judges in divorce or paternity proceedings to presume that a child has the right to equal access to both parents and that specific findings must be made to justify a deviation from that standard. This bill will be introduced again in the upcoming session.
Meeting with Representative Pond - Representative Pond is a longtime advocate of Shared parenting and will again be introducing a Shared Parenting bill. Pond has pushed for passage of her legislation for the past few sessions but her bill has not made it out of committee. We are hoping to find some bipartisan support for the bill this session.
Meeting with Representative Thompson - Representative Thompson has been a long time advocate of Shared Parenting and has again expressed his support. I will be discussing further with Representative Thompson past bills he has authored or sponsored that did not get a vote.
I had brief discussions with various legislators to keep the issue of Shared Parenting on their agenda. The opportunity for meeting times was very limited between caucus hearings and the assembly on the House floor. Many discussions took place through the hallways or even on the street en route to other meetings.
The most interesting meeting of the day took place after the Statehouse session ended when I went to visit a prominent attorney in the hospital. About 15 minutes after I arrived one of the legislators that I was unable to speak with during the day arrived and we were able to have a brief discussion there.
This was a very productive day in which additional contacts were made and more commitments to children's right to access to both parents was made by our Indiana legislators. 2010 will see the introduction of more Shared Parenting bills and under the coordinated efforts of all involved the children of Indiana should see legislation passed to ensure their right to access both parents is upheld.
Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Part III - Seeking Modification of Your Divorce Decree
Today I am presenting to you the third in a series of ten postings about divorce decrees. These will all refer to post decree actions. Most of the information is of general applicability but is cited to Indiana law where appropriate.
The most common modifications involve child custody, child support, visitation and alimony. I will discuss child custody, child support and visitation in detail under each of those topics later. For this topic today I will be presenting information about modifications generally.
Although it is possible to modify your divorce decree, and it does get done often, it is still an uphill battle. Do not take lightly the necessity to get the best original decree you can for yourself. Statutory provisions limit the time and manner in which decrees may be modified. You should always have qualified counsel before proceeding through a divorce or seeking to modify the provisions if circumstances have changed.
A change in circumstances after the original divorce decree was entered may require you to modify certain provisions of that decree. The law surrounding a petition to modify is very limited, and you should determine whether a modification is possible on a case-by-case basis. In Indiana there is no longer an action for alimony. Instead it has been woven into child support payment orders. All other modifications are controlled by statute.
If you have obtained a final decree in which you are not satisfied then you should examine all the ways in which you can attack that decree. Filing a petition to modify may not be th best way and could foreclose on other rights you may have. If it has been within 30 days you can file a Notice of Appeal or a Motion to Correct error. You do not want to take these actions without proper assistance. There are many attorneys who do not do appeals because of the very complex and technical nature of them.
If it has been over 30 days then you are limited to seeking a modification. Currently the Indiana Trial Rules allow for a change of judge as of right if you seek to modify your decree. If you have upset the judge or you feel that the judge was biased towards you then you should seek a change of judge.
For particular types of modifications please read my upcoming postings. If you are a pro se litigant I strongly suggest that you seek counsel. If you want to be represented by an attorney and need help selecting one I am available to do that. I can also assist you if you wish to represent yourself.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Part II - Standing up to your Ex-spouse
The last posting in this series discuss the filing of contempt actions. Again, if you are the target of a contempt action then I strongly suggest that you get assistance. If you cannot afford an attorney and want one the court must appoint one to represent you if jail is to be considered an option. Today I will discuss strategy and techniques for you to use to deal with a combative ex-spouse who you may need to file a contempt action against or may be filing one against you.
You should always give the opposing party adequate time to comply before filing a contempt action, but don’t wait too long to file. Failure to file in a timely manner can be viewed by the court as a lack of concern on your part that the court's orders should be followed. Therefore, a contempt action should be filed as soon as practical after the party fails to comply. This demonstrates that you demand compliance and that the orders established by the court are important to you.
Your relationship with the opposing party after the divorce will directly affect your initial actions. If an ex-spouse violates the court order without any complaint then those actions or inaction will probably continue in the future. Any order of the court which is violated is a contemptuous act. Some will appear verbatim in the divorce decree. This may be a child support amount, visitation times or other payments that must be made. Others however must be taken from statute, case law or guidelines. These may be the right to access medical or school records regardless of custodial status, support [as defined by I.C. 35-46-1-1] or provisions of an order that come secondary to a primary act.
One action that it is important to expeditiously file a contempt motion on is visitation issues. Failure to do this may leave your child feeling that you don't care to visit him or her if the other parent has been denying visitation. The most common contempt action is for non-payment of child support. In Boone County Indiana the Title IV-D prosecutor, Jennifer Stogsdill, says the prosecutor's office will not seek enforcement action for child support payments against a mother. This is not uncommon among many jurisdictions. Father's will find it nearly impossible to have a mother held in contempt.
While it is important to stand up for yourself and demand compliance with the court's orders you should not undertake any action that is going to cause conflict, especially anything illegal. If denied visitation never take your child from a home, public location or another party unless the child is in immediate danger. Instead, have your paperwork in hand and call the police. You will likely be told that the court will have to resolve the matter but make sure a report is made and get the officers name.
Unfortunately, certain spouses just refuse to abide by the decree and should go to jail for failure to comply. While this is an unfortunate situation, it is critical to send a message to that spouse that compliance with a court order is necessary and required. When people in the courtroom see the sheriff take a party to jail for contempt, great efforts are made to work out problems between the parties.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Part I - Enforcing Your Divorce Decree
After a break from a Vista induced hard-drive crash, a trial and finally getting the murder charge wrapped up with a plea agreement to three years of probation, I have now returned. Today I am presenting to you the first in a series of ten postings about divorce decrees. These will all refer to post decree actions. Most of the information is of general applicability but is cited to Indiana law where appropriate.
Enforcing Your Divorce Decree
Enforcing a court order can be the most trying element of the divorce process, depending on how the parties feel about each other when it’s over. If you generally have a mutual understanding of cooperation then the first approach should be to directly contact your former spouse and explain the problem. If there is still disagreement then you can seek the use of a mediator who is knowledgeable in this area and can attempt to facilitate agreement among the parties based upon the application of the law.
If the post decree relationship is acrimonious then the enforcement action will likely be headed to court. The formal procedure for getting the court to hear your complaint of a party not complying with a court order is a Motion for Rule to Show Cause. This motion seeks to have the other party found in contempt of court. The party filing the contempt action must show that the opposing party failed to comply with a judgment or order of the court. For this reason it is always necessary to document all divorce decree related actions once the decree is issued.
You should be realistic in your expectations of adherence to the court's orders. If the opposing party lost a job, through no fault of his own, and did not have an income during the time of the missed child support payments, that does not make for a good contempt case. Resolution of this issue will depend on the circumstances surrounding the failure to comply with the decree and the party’s ability to explain the job loss. Likewise a parent who is late for visitation exchange may be technically violating the court's order but you must judge the degree to which it interferes. Bringing a contempt action without justifiable grounds can result in you having to pay opposing counsel's attorney fees and may also cause you to be viewed with disfavor by the judge.
Remember that under a contempt action, often you are asking the court to put the opposing party in jail for failure to comply with the decree. This may be necessary to show the offending party that the obligation must be met but you consider that you are asking to put the other person in jail? Certainly this action can diminish your relationship with your former spouse and also the children if you have any. As you weigh the seriousness of the contempt consider that you may be jailing your children's parent and causing an increase in hostility.
If you decide to go forward with a contempt action it is your responsibility to show that the other person violated a court order. It is likely that a hearing will be set for the matter. You will present your case first and may call witnesses and present documentation if needed. Then the opposing side may cross-examine your witnesses and present his own witnesses and documentation to refute your claims. I suggest that you use assistance in bringing this action. If you are the target of a contempt action then I strongly suggest that you get assistance. If you cannot afford an attorney and want one the court must appoint one to represent you if jail is to be considered an option.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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.
About Me
- Stuart Showalter - Child Custody Advisor
- As a child custody policy advisor I have written and had child custody related legislation passed into law. My counseling of lawyers and appearances as an expert witness have helped them achieve more favorable results for their clients including winning appeals, gaining parenting time, reducing conflict, and mediating agreements. Additionally I made important contributions to the amended Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines that went into effect March 2013 and am currently formulating recommendations for the Indiana Child Support Guidelines which are to be amended this year. For parents I offer child custody based life coaching to help them maintain control of their lives and increase their fitness as parents so they can truly serve the best interest of their children.
