When Boone Superior Court II judge Rebecca McClure ordered that I was not allowed to attend the criminal trial of a client of mine I knew she was violating Indiana's Open Door Law. So, I immediately made a request for access to the recordings of the proceeding under Indiana's Access to Public Records Act [APRA]. Incidentally, my client was acquitted.
When McClure denied my request stating that the proceedings of criminal trials are confidential I filed a complaint with the Indiana Public Access Counselor [PAC] who is an attorney working for the Indiana Attorney General. McClure then conceded that I was correct, that the recording was not confidential. However, she placed additional restrictions on my access to the recordings that violated the APRA. More about that may be read on the Indiana Coalition for Open Government's website.
McClure had also ruled that I was to use the Indiana Trial Rules when seeking information from the Town of Thorntown about police officers stalking women. McClure reasoned, incorrectly, that since the town has sued me for placing a sign in the window of my home about a child-molestation ring that I could no longer use the APRA.
The Thorntown case was brought after Town Council President Gary Jones freaked out that I was threatening to reveal who was involved in a child-molestation ring. This came after Western Boone Junior High School [WEBO] Assistant Principal Jerry Taylor resigned in 2005 following a sexual assault complaint.
I also had recordings of Jerry Taylor discussing that he had Boone Circuit Court Judge Steve David give extra punishment to children at Taylor's request. One parent told me this was her child being sent to the Henry County Youth Center after Taylor's sexual advances were rebuffed. Other's were sent to the Indiana United Methodists Children's Home [IUMCH] in Lebanon.
Around the same time a student at WEBO who was age 15 at the time sent a letter to me following her arrest and detention at the Boone County Jail complaining of something that happened to her. I made a public records request to the jail and the prosecutor's office seeking access to those records since they are public pursuant to statute. Judge David summarily dismissed the lawsuit against the prosecutor protecting other's in the ring.
The lawsuit against the jail, heard by a different judge, was settled with disclosure of the very few documents that were available and the implementation of a new policy to comply with the recording keeping law of juveniles held at the facility.
In the meantime Judge David had issued a restraining order barring me from receiving additional information from the girl. After the girl delivered additional information to my home Judge David issued an arrest warrant for me. Even though I demanded a trial and wanted to present this information to a jury Boone County Prosecutor Todd Meyer dismissed the charge he had brought.
Finally, in 2008 a worker at the IUMCH was convicted of sexual assault on one of the three girls, all age 15, who I had received complaints from or had information on of inappropriate sexual activity there.
There has been no additional or wider investigation of the child sex ring operating in Boone County but Judge McClure in a document did admit to her involvement in covering it up.
So now Judge William Hughes of Hamilton Superior Court III will decide if the County of Boone has justification for denying access to public records or if the citizens of the State of Indiana will prevail.
The trial will be held at 9:00am in the Boone superior Court I on 08 November 2010. The trial is open to the public by statute and the Constitution. I am confident that Hughes will allow spectators.
Stuart Showalter's Political FaceBook page
Subscribe
Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates
©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Right to Access Court Records Trial 08 November
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Why I am Voting No on the Lebanon School Referendum
The Lebanon Community School Corporation is seeking voter approval for a $40 million bond offering for various building projects. I have attended meetings, read the materials and talked to many people in the community about the $40 million school projects referendum that will be on the ballot this November. There are needs in the proposal but also wishes with unproven educational outcomes.
The school board members, as stewards of our tax dollars, have been entrusted to demonstrate competent management skills in their fiduciary task. As well, they are in a leadership position for our children.
Recently there was not a parking lot near the middle school sports fields although ample parking existed. I was at the meeting where the board voted to spend about $100K on that parking project. One reason disturbed me; because even though there were signs prohibiting parking in that area people were doing it anyway so a parking lot may as well be built for them.
This is modeling behaviour. Most parents don't believe it but children acknowledge that we are the greatest influence on them. Since the adolescent mind does not reason in the same way as an adult we must demonstrate appropriate actions rather than articulate desired outcomes. Developmental psychologist Jean Piaget believed that children made moral judgments based on their own observations of the world.
It's not about parking, it's the rule. The children see that enough people violated a rule then those in a leadership position did away with it to accommodate the rule breakers actions. Apply this thinking pattern to the risky behaviours that adolescents may engage in and the example provided by the school, the steward of your children and the desired $40 million.
It's about leadership, responsibility and placing money in the hands of those who modeled such behaviour. Throwing more money at problems may be ineffective. Proper management of existing funds and understanding child development is better than more money.
Many of us attended schools that didn't have all the luxuries that many modern schools have and we have still been quite successful. What we did have was leaders who understood our needs and modeled behaviour to best accommodate those.
The necessary improvements can be done without a yes vote on this referendum. A no vote is not a vote against the children but may better be seen as a vote in support of the children.
Stuart Showalter's Political FaceBook page
Subscribe
Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates
©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Indiana Rules Drafted for Parenting Time Coordination
The Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Judicial Center met on Friday 22 October 2010. The morning session of the meeting was a joint session between the Domestic Relations Committee and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee.
Subcommittees of the two committees had been working on proposed rules for parenting time coordination. A draft of the Indiana Rules for Parenting Coordination was presented and discussed.
It was the intention of the committees when drafting these rules that Parenting Time Coordination [PTC] should be used as a last resort and that mediation or other alternatives first be sought. They do not believe it is intended for all cases but only high-conflict parties.
Currently PTC must be agreed to by the parties who pay the costs. It is usually a result of the judge encouraging the parties to seek resolution of their disputed issues before returning to contest them in court.
Parties engaged in PTC pay a retainer and sign a contract that stipulates the costs to the parties. Hourly rates vary between $50-$200 in current cases. Mark Lloyd, Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee Chair, stated that it costs much less for the parties to sit down with a Parenting Coordinator [PC] than to continue paying two attorneys to litigate the issues. Johnson County has a provision for indigent parties to have ADR opportunities.
Judge Thomas Milligan, Montgomery County Superior Court, stated that the most contentious and litigious cases involve pro se parties. This is the same thing that I have found to be true as most of my clients for litigation coaching have either spent themselves into poverty fighting or have been rejected by or fired attorneys who will not carry forth with frivolous battles.
Currently 15 states have rules or statutes on PTC. Some states permit PTC to be ordered without agreement of the parties. However, a judge can't require the parties to pay for it if judge orders it.`Hendricks Superior Court Judge Karen Love said she has forced it on parties who didn't want it but after participating were glad they did. Johnson County has a program that pays for PTC for parties who are indigent but ordered into PTC by the judge.
One of my legislative proposals for the upcoming session of the Indiana General Assembly will require that the parties in a disputed child custody action meet with a mediator before appearing in court. The mediator will provide an initial report to the court about what the contested issues are and what he or she believes the degree of conflict between the parties to be.
Judges need to be educated on the availability and benefits of PTC so they will recommend or push it on the parties. Having established rules will make the process more effective and help judges to feel more secure in ordering or facilitating PTC.
The committees worked on revising the proposed PTC rules throughout the day. The DRC had been scheduled to hear proposals by Judge William Fee and Judge Karen Love related to two sections of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. Parenting Time to Occur as Planned and Enforcement of Parenting Time, Contempt and Resolution of Problems will be presented at the next meeting which is scheduled for 19 November 2010.
Stuart Showalter's Political FaceBook page
Subscribe
Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates
©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Domestic Relations Committee to consider Parenting Time Coordination
The Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Supreme Court will begin considering Parenting Time Coordination in child custody cases when it meets at its next regularly scheduled meeting.
I have been working on writing a statute to require Parenting Time Coordination in all child custody cases before the matters are litigated by the court. I hope this can make post separation parenting a collaborative effort at the earliest time. There is plenty of evidence that shows conflict in the child custody litigation process harms children. I believe if parents are brought together at the earliest stage of the process it may reduce the litigation. I am working on a checklist of factors that should be considered in a parenting plan. Please contact me with anything that you feel should be added.
There will be a cost for this and it will be significant. I do believe that some of the costs will be recovered by reducing court congestion. More important though it will reduce the costs associated with the effects of prolonged conflict on the children. This includes psychiatric care, law enforcement actions and dependence on public resources. This cost is not easily quantified but is there.
I have one legislator who has said he is tired of hearing the excuse that we don't have money for various initiatives. If it needs to be done then find the money. I believe parenting time coordination pays for itself although it may take many years for that savings to be realized. More important than the accounting balance though is that I believe this will lead to more engaged parents and ultimately a healthier life for the child(ren) and relationship with their parents.
The Committee meets on Friday 22 October 2010 at 10:30 a.m. at the Indiana Judicial Center, 30 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis. Members of the public are invited to attend.
Stuart Showalter's Political FaceBook page
Subscribe
Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates
©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Indiana Prosecutors Help Reduce Child Support Payment Orders
The second session of the 2010 Indiana Child Custody and Support Advisory Committee [ICCSAC] hearings continued discussion about alternatives to incarceration for non-compliance with child support payment orders. The Committee Chair, Vanessa Summers, invited additional input by some child support enforcement prosecutors from around the state.
Mr. Andrew Schweller, Deputy Prosecutor, Allen County Prosecutor's Office, discussed the prison population project. He stated that the project involved the Allen County Prosecutor's Office writing to incarcerated non-custodial parents and offering to file for a modification of child support on their behalf. In 2007 the Indiana Supreme Court, in Lambert v Lambert, ruled that child support payment orders of incarcerated individuals must be based on their income at that time and not imputed to what the person could be earning if not incarcerated.
Mr Schweller admitted that it had been the goal of prosecutors and judges to get the highest child support payment order possible but that attitude is now changing. This is in part due to new federal incentive payment regulations that base payments on five performance standards. These include the compliance rate; that is the total percent of payments collected instead of the total amount ordered. Collecting 100% of an order that is cut in half provides the state with more money than collecting 50% of an order twice the size even though both are the same amount of money.
In response to a question from Representative Summers, Mr. Schweller stated that in Allen county very rarely does a person go to jail the first time for failure to pay child support. He stated that a person would usually go through two probation hearings and work release before being incarcerated for failure to pay child support. He said that usually around sixty individuals go to prison each year in Allen county for failing to pay child support. In response to questions from Committee members, Mr. Schweller indicated that he believed using mediators and facilitators is a good idea because sometimes the problem is communication. Through bringing both parents together they can often see that a support order must be reasonable and is best for all parties if it is and then is also paid.
Ms. Kathy Dvorak, Child Support (Title IV-D) Program Administrator, St. Joseph County Prosecutor's Office, provided a handouf concerning St. Joseph County's programs for delinquent obligors. Ms. Dvorak explained that the child support division (division) tries to identify the barriers in paying child support for non-custodial parents..
Her office will subpoena both parents to an administrative hearing to determine a child support payment order. Ms Dvorak explained that the division attempts to establish support orders by stipulation/agreement. She stated that the division holds an administrative hearing to also determine what the barriers are for the noncustodial parent in paying child support
She indicated that the non-custodial parents are often grateful that the division is listening to them. She said that the division has partnered with a Notre Dame law clinic to offer mediation for child custody and support for families.
In response to a question from Mr. DeVries, a Committee member, about whether the division had incurred extra costs in implementing the programs for delinquent obligors, Ms. Dvorak indicated that the division has not received any extra resources. She stated that while there may be more costs for the additional hearings in the offices of the division, the division spends less time pursuing and enforcing child support in court.
Mr. William Welch, Deputy Prosecutor/Child Support Administrator, Monroe County Prosecutor's Office, spoke to Committee members concerning non-custodial parent services (NCPS) in Monroe County. He stated that the Monroe County Prosecutor's Office has a liaison that contacts and works with non-custodial parents throughout the child support enforcement process. He also explained how the liaison works with noncustodial parents. He stated that the liaison will refer non-custodial parents to workforce development, drug and alcohol abuse programs, and other contacts to help address the non-custodial parent's issues in failing to pay child support.
Ms. Gina Jones, Child Support Administrator/Deputy Prosecutor, Lake County Prosecutor's Office, discussed the Support for Kids Improvement Program (SKIP). She stated that if a non-custodial parent shows a willingness but inability to pay child support, the court withholds contempt for thirty days and the non-custodial parent is referred to the SKIP program. This program helps identify barriers to paying support, getting realistic support orders set and implementing a payment plan.
Both the Monroe County and Lake County programs appear to be very similar to Virginia's Intensive Case Monitoring Program. I spoke about the record of this program briefly and provided a handout to the committee members.
Ms Dvorak's statement about cost realignment was good to hear as well as Mr Schweller's belief that using mediators and facilitators reduces the burden on the courts. I have been seeking to have legislation passed which will require parenting time coordinators in divorce and paternity cases prior to entering the courtroom. While there will be additional court costs for the coordinators I do believe it will be offset by reduced courtroom litigation and should be supported for this reason.
The hardline approach that took hold in the mid 1990's which says set support as high as possible and jail those who don't pay is now having to give way to reality. Parents in jails or prisons have less opportunity to provide financial and emotional support for their children. The Indiana Supreme Court in numerous cases has established that parents must have the ability to pay the support ordered. Prosecutors are willing to help parents paying support get the orders reduced to an amount they can pay and in some instances help with parenting time issues.
This is progress in the right direction. We still have a long way to go on the parenting time issues but are getting closer. If you need help with modifying your support payment order or getting your parenting time enforced please contact me.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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. 
Monday, October 4, 2010
Indiana Seeks Alternative to Incarceration for Child Support
The first session of the 2010 Indiana Child Custody and Support Advisory Committee [ICCSAC] hearings was dominated by discussion about alternatives to incarceration for non-compliance with child support payment orders. The Committee Chair, Vanessa Summers, had sought input on a matter that she thinks makes absolutely no sense; incarcerating a parent for not paying child support.
Tim Brown, Director of Legislative Services, Department of Correction [DOC] presented information about the Indiana Department of Corrections and offenders incarcerated for non-payment of court ordered child support. From 2006-2009 there was an average of 335 offenders with a non-support charge have that as their primary offense incarcerated with an average executed sentence of 310 days. About 3/4 of them had non-support as their primary offense.
According to statistics provided by Mr Brown, on 09 September 2010 the DOC held 217 women and 12 men for non payment of support as their primary offense. Additionally 2 women and 75 men were held for non payment of support as their secondary offense.
Of the 265 offenders released in 2006 for non payment of support as their primary offense, 113 or 42% had returned to prison by 2009. Of those, three-fourths had returned for the same offense. As Mr Brown noted the re-offend rate for non payment of support is at a much higher rate than the general population.
The total cost of this benefit to children in 2009 was $6.93M.
Cynthia Longest, Deputy Director of the Indiana Child Support Bureau presented information about the involvement of the Department of Childrens' Services involvement in child support payment enforcement. She stated that about $1B annually is processed through ISETS with the federal government paying 66% of the Title IV-D operating costs.
Of the incentive money collected from the federal government 1/3 goes to county prosecutors with the remainder split equally among three other beneficiaries including the county general fund which receives 22% by statute. That means, in essence, that a county can increase their income by having more and greater child support payment orders issued by judges.
For many years there was a mindset that breaking families apart and issuing high child support payment orders was a good method for generating income for local government. However, that attitude is now being shown to be a fallacy and some counties and prosecutors are making efforts to reduce child support payment orders.
This change came about because Indiana ranks 43rd in the county in child support payment collections and now risks losing federal incentive payments. The federal government is changing the reimbursement method from a basis of total support payments ordered to percent collected.
With support payments often being set at 1/3 or more of a parents income many have been placed in the position of facing repossession of a car, eviction from a home or paying the court ordered child support. Given that some prosecutors and judges go after parents who pay 75% just as intensely and those who pay 0% many of those paying 75% found that it was better to pay none and use the money towards maintaining basic necessities.
Prosecutors and judges who have seen partial payment rates dwindle to zero because the consequences are the same are now making efforts to get support orders reduced. If a parent who could pay 50% gets their support order cut in half then the same dollar amount would become 100% in compliance with the support order. This will increase the state's ranking and federal incentive payments.
Representative Summers said she wants fathers/parents to have more access to children. Robert Monday of PACE offered an observation that none of the prior speakers had spoken about increased parenting time or parenting time enforcement as a means of increasing the compliance rate.
Simply put, a parent who has the child is going to have to shelter the child, feed him or her and provide the other needs. There is no way to avoid providing that support. Numerous studies have also concluded that parental compliance with support payments is proportional to parenting time. That is, those who are denied parenting time pay at a much lower rate but increases as the time with the child increases.
I brought to the attention of the committee a program in Virginia called the Intensive Case Monitoring Program. In 2008, the Division of Child Support Enforcement
established the Intensive Case Monitoring Program (ICMP), an innovative measure to maximize child support collections and decrease incarceration due to non-payment. Parents who were at risk of incarceration were considered for the program. The needs of the parent such as education, housing, transportation, employment and mental health care were first met. This then allowed for the parent to start making regular support payments.
Since its inception, the ICMP has expanded to seven judicial districts with 11 judges
participating. Through June 2009, the ICMP has helped 199 participants and collected more than $175,000 in child support – an amount significantly higher than the child support paid by the same population six months prior to participation. Of the 199 participants, 26 graduated and have either begun to make consistent, timely child support payments or have fully paid off arrears and were able to close their DCSE cases.
Most graduates of the program have found stable employment and child support wage withholdings have been issued. Some graduates faced obstacles such as homelessness or disabilities, but with the assistance of case managers the participants overcame such barriers. Over $3.00 in child support is collected from each ICMP participant for every DCSE dollar expended on the program.
Virginia has found an approach that has shown much greater success than Indiana's incarceration approach which has a 42% recidivism rate within three years. Many of the problems faced by offenders prior to incarceration are on exasperated by the incarceration. Employment, housing and addiction issues are usually only compounded through incarceration rather than abated.
Clearly, as Representative Summers has recognized, Indiana needs to change its' approach to child support payment order enforcement. I will be providing additional information about the program to the committee at the next meeting.
The committee will meet for two additional sessions. Wednesday 06 October 2010 at 1:30 p.m. and Wednesday 20 October 2010 at 1:30 p.m. Members of the public are encouraged and invited to attend.
If you need help in modifying your child support payment order or need additional details on the ICCSAC meetings please contact me.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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, September 12, 2010
2010 Indiana Child Custody and Support Advisory Committee
On Tuesday 14 September 2010 the Indiana Child Custody and Support Advisory Committee will meet for their first session of the year. The Committee will meet at the Indiana State House in room 404 at 1:30 p.m.
The agenda of the Committee will includes incarceration for non-payment of court ordered child support and child support enforcement. Tim Brown, Director of Legislative Services, for the Indiana Department of Correction and Cynthia Longest, Deputy Director of the Child Support Bureau, Department of Child Services will present on this issue. I will be providing input on alternatives to incarceration for non-payment of court ordered child support as well as presenting proposed legislation and information about "virtual visitation".
The public is invited and encouraged to attend.
Stuart Showalter's Political FaceBook page
Subscribe
Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates
©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
