16 October 2013
The Indiana Commission on Improving the Status of Children met for its second session today. The Commission is unique in its composition as it brings together leaders from all three branches of state government in areas that relate to childhood well-being. Most similar commissions throughout the country or Indiana in the past have been primarily a judicial or legislative unit.
The purpose statement of the Committee reads: “The multi-branch statewide Commission is aimed at improving the status of children in Indiana. In cooperation with other entities, members of the State Commission on Improving the Status of Children will study issues concerning vulnerable youth, review and make recommendations concerning pending legislation, and promote information sharing and best practices.”
The Commission has identified its Mission as: To improve the status of children in Indiana. The Vision is: Every child in Indiana will have a safe and nurturing environment and be afforded opportunities to grow into a healthy and productive adult.
In its first session the Commission determined six Program Priority Objectives;
1] Increase availability of and access to quality mental health services,
2] Reforms of child placement services,
3] Improve healthcare access,
4] Improve educational outcomes,
5] Expand juvenile justice reforms, and
6] Increase substance abuse treatment and prevention services.
The Commission determined four Cross System Priority Issues;
1] Improve data sharing/communication across agencies,
2] Public education/awareness,
3] Address service array gaps, particularly in rural areas, and
4] Child fatalities
IC 2-5-36-9
Duties of the commission
Sec. 9. The commission shall do the following:
(1) Study and evaluate the following:
(A) Access to services for vulnerable youth.
(B) Availability of services for vulnerable youth.
(C) Duplication of services for vulnerable youth.
(D) Funding of services available for vulnerable youth.
(E) Barriers to service for vulnerable youth.
(F) Communication and cooperation by agencies concerning vulnerable youth.
(G) Implementation of programs or laws concerning vulnerable youth.
(H) The consolidation of existing entities that serve vulnerable youth.
(I) Data from state agencies relevant to evaluating progress, targeting efforts, and demonstrating outcomes.
(2) Review and make recommendations concerning pending legislation.
(3) Promote information sharing concerning vulnerable youth across the state.
(4) Promote best practices, policies, and programs.
(5) Cooperate with:
(A) other child focused commissions;
(B) the judicial branch of government;
(C) the executive branch of government;
(D) stakeholders; and
(E) members of the community.
(6) Submit a report not later than July 1 of each year regarding the commission's work during the previous year. The report shall be submitted to the legislative council, the governor, and the chief justice of Indiana. The report to the legislative council must be in an electronic format under IC 5-14-6.
The members of the Commission are;
Debra Minott, Secretary, FSSA
Mary Beth Bonaventura, Director, DCS
Rep Gail Rieken
Kevin Moore, Director, FSSA Division of Mental Health and Addiction
Ryan Streeter, Senior Policy Director for Governor Mike Pence
Lilia Judson, Ex Dir, Division of State Court Administration
Justice Loretta Rush, Indiana Supreme Court
Susan Lightfoot, Chief Probation Officer, Henry County Probation Department
Mike Dempsey, Director, Indiana DOC, Division of Youth Services
Greg Zoeller, Indiana Attorney General
Dr William VanNess, State Health Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health
Glenda Ritz, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Indiana DOE
Senator Tim Lanane
Larry Landis, Director, Public Defender Council
David Powell, Director, Prosecuting Attorney's Council
Rep Rebecca Kubacki
Senator Travis Holdman
Brian Bailey, Director, Indiana State Budget Agency
The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled for 11 December 2013 from 10:00 – 2:00 at the Indiana Government Center South.
If you would like assistance ensuring that your children have the best outcomes then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Indiana Commission on Improving the Status of Children
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
A Failing Attorney-Client Relationship in Child Custody Proceedings
14 October 2013
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Like any intimate relationship the attorney-client relationship must meet certain foundational requirements – trust, mutual respect, like outcome based goal, and acknowledgment of the relationship limits. Distress in the attorney-client relationship is often a result of the breakdown of one or more of those foundational principles.
Parents come to me with the complaint that their attorney has completely botched their case. I first ask who appointed your attorney to represent you. Rarely is the answer something different than the parent having selected the attorney by himself or herself. While most can acknowledge that they are accountable for that decision they still feel trapped in that the cost to get a new attorney fully familiarized with the case appears to be cost prohibitive. This is generally accompanied by the declaration that the attorney was recommended.
From the attorney perspective again comes frustration. When attorneys seek my assistance with a case it is usually a high conflict parent who “just doesn't get it.” While attorneys can often be quite effective in eliciting the necessary information and building a case strategy, the very pedagogy of law school for the most part fails to equip them with the tool to handle the emotionally charged client determined to win at all costs. These parents are the saboteurs of their own case. It takes much more than training in law to be able to effectively advocate for these parents. It is not that they are inherently bad people but they have lost focus and need to be reeled in. I have seen attorneys dismiss these parents even when the money kept flowing in from the myriad of legal combative maneuvers. Sometimes the frustration just isn't worth it. Nor is upsetting a judge.
Where ever you are in the case proceedings, if you do not have a supportive attorney-client relationship then you are unlikely going to be unable to obtain a parenting time order that is best for the children. Talents and resources are also likely to wasted as the case drags on for much longer than most people anticipate. If you are in a failing attorney-client relationship then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make arrangements for me to assist with your next attorney-client session which should be to re-evaluate that relationship. There is no charge for this initial attorney consultations.
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, October 13, 2013
Time to Teach Body Safety to Our Kids
13 October 2013
Today's posting is a guest column by an associate, Jayneen Sanders [aka Jay Dale], who is an expert on child sexual abuse. Child sexual abuse is a significant societal problem and often a contributor in marital discord. Parents should inventory their proactive efforts to prevent child sexual abuse within their family. I recently wrote about how Most Parents Encourage Sexual Abuse of Their Children. I suggest that you read it also. But first, Jay Dale -
With 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 6 boys being sexually abused before their 18th birthday and with 93% of them knowing their perpetrator, it is time sexual abuse prevention education (also known as ‘body safety’) was taught in our homes and our schools.
As parents and teachers, we happily instruct children in road safety and water safety; we teach about stranger danger, and with older children we teach them about the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse. But my concern, as both a mother and a teacher, has always been with our little ones — I’m talking about children from 3 to 10 years of age. And in particular, younger children who just want to be good and do what the ‘big person’ says which includes keeping secrets. I believe we can reduce these horrific statistics, if we just teach body safety to the kids in our care. Knowledge is powerful and forewarned is forearmed!
Simply put, the message to children is: your body is your body and no-one has the right to touch it, and if they do, you must tell someone you trust and keep on telling until you are believed. And the lesson for us as parents and teachers is we need to believe children. A child’s voice is important and if we dismiss a disclosure or and indicator that something is not right, that child may never tell again.
Teaching body safety is not rocket science. It can be simple, non-threatening but the knowledge a child gains from such instruction is very powerful. This knowledge just may prevent a child from a lifetime of ongoing trauma. Too often I have heard survivors of childhood sexual abuse say — if only someone had told me it was wrong, I would never have kept the secret and spoken up.
Perpetrators do rely heavily on the child keeping their ‘little secret’. They will threaten, blackmail and use whatever means it takes, to ensure the secret is kept by the child. If the secret is exposed, they are exposed. Therefore the keeping of ‘the secret’ is paramount to the abusers. That is why, as part of educating children in body safety, we need to ensure they know that keeping secrets that make them feel uncomfortable and activate their ‘early warning signs’ must be told! In body safety education we instruct children to know the difference between surprises, such as not telling Granny about a birthday present, and secrets that make us feel bad and uncomfortable.
Story is an excellent medium to talk to children about difficult topics, such as inappropriate touch and secrets. Some Secrets Should Never Be Kept was written so parents and educators had a platform to teach body safety to kids. It is a beautifully illustrated and sensitively broaches the subject in a non-threatening way. The book’s focus reinforces that ‘some secrets should never be kept’, even though the perpetrator is telling the child otherwise. This part of body safety education is paramount. A child must never be voiceless just because they are a child. They must be educated to know their rights in relation to their body and to always speak up when, and if, they are touched inappropriately — no matter what the abusers has threatened. The crucial lesson to adults is to always listen and believe the child.
If you go to www.somesecrets.info you will find lots of information, for example, ‘Body Safety Skills — a Guide for Parents and Carers’
http://somesecrets.info/parents
a powerful but simple ‘body safety’ song to teach to young children, and many more resources to assist you in the implementation of sexual abuse prevention education.
Jayneen Sanders (aka Jay Dale) is a teacher, mother of three daughters and lead author for ‘Engage Literacy’. She is also the author of the children’s picture book ‘Some Secrets Should Never Be Kept’ and supporting teacher’s pack. For more information on this topic go to www.somesecrets.info.
If your clients' case involves allegations or suspicions of child sexual abuse then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Societal Acceptance of Domestic Violence Against the Most Vulnerable
10 October 2013
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
2013 Presidential Proclamation of Domestic Violence Awareness Month
When I use the term “violence” I am speaking of it from the clinical perspective. That is, actions that do actually or threaten to do physical or psychological harm to the receiver whether made using physical force, psychological trauma, or an element of control over the needs and resources of the receiver. Domestic Violence which includes Intimate Partner Violence is a violent act between members of the same family for the purpose of exerting control over the receiver. The greater harm of DV over stranger violence is the violation of trust between the participants in family members. Whether the protective obligation to the family member is explicit or implicit it is the violation of the expectation of protection coming from the person to whom such protection was entrusted.
As with many hot button issues there is a dichotomy between perception and reality. Domestic Violence is no different. Images of DV are generally that of a man beating on a woman. Strauss, Gelles and Steinmetz (1980), and (1988) long ago published findings that violence inflicted upon husbands by wives was just as common as that inflicted up wives by husbands. Strauss, Gelles and Steinmetz noted that 28 percent of husbands and 23 percent of wives thought that “a couple slapping each other” was normal along with 15 and 9 percent respectively claiming that it was a good thing. What is more amazing is that 70 percent of parents proclaimed that violence directed towards their children was a good thing. Currently about two-thirds of American parents believe that violence against their own children is acceptable. A rate that has been rather steady since 1990. Up to 94 percent of adults admit to engaging in DV against their own children when the question is framed by its actions rather than name. These parents see the violence as acceptable while engaging in “Domestic Violence” is not. So again, perception plays a role.
“This is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you” is the mantra of many a child abuser who wishes to rationalize his or her violence directed towards one's own child. Day, Gilbert, Settles, & Burr (1995) state that these authoritarian parents excuse the abuse by saying it is out of love for the child expressed as “interest in our child's welfare.” It is well established that this form of abuse, cloaked as discipline, is not effective in producing a better disciplined child. Coopersmith (1967) states that compliance is achieved by fear of retribution and that the violence demonstrates that the children have little worth to the parents.
Often times the violence directed at the child is a result of frustration, anger or retaliation rather than trying to develop true discipline. Instead or providing discipline it only humiliates the child which is damaging to self-esteem and social development as well as breeding resentment toward the abuser. Bachman, O'Malley, & Johnson (1978) propounded that it is the love of parents communicated through warmth and trust that fosters self-esteem. But, violence by a parent demonstrates neither warmth nor trust. As Carl E Pickard (2006) notes, parents who “choose to inflict physical hurt as a punishment” are teaching “that if you're bigger and not getting what you want, beating up on someone weaker is okay.” He states that this physical abuse “can arouse fear in the young child and extreme resentment in the adolescent.” Strauss, Gelles and Steinmetz likewise says that “Hitting children establishes the moral correctness of hitting members of the family” and that these abuse victims are more likely to victimize a future spouse or their own offspring.
While the attitudes of spousal DV violence have changed dramatically over the years there is still, largely, a cultural acceptance of DV directed towards children which produces abusive spouses or intimate partners in the future. In the 2005-2006 year school administrators in Indiana, one of nineteen that allowed it at that time, hit children at a rate of 1 per 2000. The schools were operating in loco parentis, that is in place of the parent. Nationwide the rate has dropped from 3.5% in 1976 to 0.5% in 2006. Rates of abuse by parents in the home remains much higher and is much more tolerated. A 1995 survey for the National Institute of Health found that in the previous year 35% of parents of infants admitted to hitting them while parents of children age three and four struck their children at an alarming rate of 94%. “You better not hit my kids, abusing them is for me to do” seems to be the American attitude toward DV against children.
That attitude is not without an ingrained cultural support though. The concept of children as parental property has been rooted in the Hebrew code of 800 B.C. Which considered infanticide to be an acceptable practice. The Book of Proverbs (13:24) encourages the beating of one's children: “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently.” Torgerson (1973) claimed that a German poll indicated that up to 60% of parents thought that “beating” their children was acceptable. DeMause 1974) found that 80% of German parents had beat their children, 35% with canes. Germany at that time recently had a dark history of using violence as a social control and thus it was part of the cultural norm. In 2000 Germany banned the use of violence by parents against their children. Mead (1935) had suggested that the level of abuse that parents inflict upon their children is correlated to the society viewpoint on physical aggression in general. Thus, aggressive and war driven societies like the United States have high rates of abuse and neglect of their children while peaceful societies such as Japan have a rate about 1/3 of that. Nance (1975) observed that some cultures have little or no vocabulary for violence related acts or objects of war and concurrently have little violence in their societies.
If Domestic Violence is to truly be suppressed and extinguished if possible then it is necessary that a critical initial step be taken. That is to quit breeding violent abusers through the conditioning process of directing DV towards children. It is the indoctrination of children into the societal concepts that disagreements, frustration or challenges to power are resolved through violence. We cannot count on the abusers themselves to break this cycle. We are going to have to teach them for it has been well-established that violent abusers score lower across a broad intelligence and knowledge matrix. For additional information on protecting children from abuse please visit Prevent Child Abuse Indiana.
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 7, 2013
Are you hearing what is being said?
07 October 2013
I often bring up the distinction between hearing and listening. It is an important distinction. In the courtroom it can make the difference between presenting your position in a cogent manner or providing a non-responsive oratory that bewilders observers.
Over the weekend I was exposed to a commercial by Life Alert. I intentionally use the word 'expose' in reference to commercials because I view them in the context of a pathogen – that they infect our brains and can have a malignant impact. Life Alert is the company that offers the communication device made famous through the “Help I've fallen and I can't get up commercials.” Their latest marketing campaign tempers that previous oft ridiculed scenario. The current advertisement includes the tag line “We save a life every 11 minutes.”
I found that claim to be both a curiosity and alarming. I first wondered what is their distinction between providing life saving assistance and that which would not have resulted in death had it not been rendered. The scenario in this recent commercial is of an elderly lady who has fallen simply asking the Life Alert operator to notify a neighbor of the situation.
What I find alarming is the consistent frequency with which life saving assistance is provided. In the physics sense the assistance is provided in a wave structure with peaks and troughs. Daily life doesn't function in such a manner in the immediate sense although when spread out over vast periods such occurrences may exhibit a wave structure. Imagine an earthquake striking an area inhabited by Life Alert customers. If just 11 of them seek life saving assistance it could be a two hour wait [11 interactions at 11 minute intervals] for that one incident by Life Alert's own admission. That is not a wait that I would find acceptable for a relative in a life threatening situation.
The agency hired by Life Alert to promote their service had a daunting task – to promote the service provided that must include a substantial wait. To even know and state that service is provided on a regular and continuing basis as to be able to build an advertising campaign around means the que for service must be extensive. I am guessing at a full day or more.
Action is based upon perception. Perception is a result of the interpretation of a message -- input stimuli. This is clearly observable from the opinions about and illicit drug by high school seniors. While 9% perceive a danger from alcohol use 70% have a lifetime usage. Conversely there is a 60% perception that heroin is dangerous while lifetime usage is 1%. In short, perception matters. Marketing professionals have been very successful at conveying an image that alcohol does not have a risk of danger but is instead an incubator of good times and good feelings.
If you failed to hear the message that there may be a substantial lag in Life Alert providing life saving assistance then you are likely allowing your perception to be skewed by conditioning just as the high school students have about alcohol. That is, you have been taught to make assumptions about what you hear, often using visual images, not to properly interpret what is actually said. Life Alert accomplished this by showing a caller getting immediate assistance for a non life threatening event while still stating life saving assistance may only come after a significant wait. This is important in daily life and should justify your added attention. In child custody proceedings it is imperative that you or your attorney hear and respond to what is being said rather than assumptions as law does not allow for that. In fact, to be enforceable a court order must be “clear and unambiguous”.
If you want to be sure that your child custody case is effectively litigated then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Be Careful How You Step
30 September 2013
Your storyteller here often prides himself on what appears to be an uncanny knack to not only consciously observe his surroundings but to be subconsciously immersed by the sensory input and the mental processing that whisk him past all hazards. So it is with the most humble of moods that I engage you in this tale of doggie defecation mayhem.
My regular work in the building trades as a general contractor for home building and remodeling took a sudden downturn in 2008. From then I pursued the white collar trade of counseling my fellow parents and lawyers. I am now fully disposed to improving their child custody cases and lives in general. But I still help a friend with the building trades when asked. So here is the story of my latest misadventure as I recited it to a friend who also works in the building trades.
I was doing some electrical work in a house today where a dog also resided. It didn't bother me other than the non-stop barking. I was able to complete the work, get on my way home and settle in for a bite to eat. And some rest As the pleasant aroma of my culinary delights hung in the steamy air of the kitchen no such delights greeted me upon my returned to the living room. In there – where I had shed my outer wear and keep the bicycles – I was greeted by the distinct odor of, shall I say, doggie keester cakes. I grabbed a shoe and took a look. Sure enough the underside of my right shoe appeared as though I had trod through a hog sty. Out the door went the shoes.
Upon completing my meal in my bedroom, which was more appealing to the olfactory sense, I headed out to run some errands. Although I had left the front and back doors open, as I sat in the living room slipping my feet into my cycling shoes, I was still engulfed in the odor of doggie keester cakes. I pulled the bike back down from the ceiling and was on my way.
Upon completion of those chores I then cleaned the shoe I had worn while installing the electrical lines this morning. With a bucket of water and a wire brush I cleaned off the underside of the assaulted shoe as I sat on the deck. Although I had kept the door closed, when I went back into the house there it was again – doggie keester cakes odor. I repeat the airing out process by leaving the doors open again. This time for sure, there was a steady breeze that brought air into the living room and exited onto the deck which should do it.
While I was picking up a few items from the living room floor, my face on the same plane as my bicycle pedals, I discovered that the pedals were encrusted with some of the offending doggie keester cakes. At this point I am getting pissed-off. You know that doesn't happen often. So out the door goes the bicycle and the explanation of why the offending scent was ever present in my home.
Notice that I said “pedals” – the plural. Yep, it was on both shoes. So, I went back out to the deck and scrubbed the underside of the left shoe this time. The it was onto cleaning the pedals. There was doggie keester cakes mashed into the springs and every other part of the pedals. That was more challenging to clean but I got it done. I even used chemicals.
Back to mental stimulation. I was in the bedroom studying for an hour or so and then, of course with me, it was time to eat again. As soon as I step into the hall I smell that damn doggie keester cakes odor hanging in the air like burnt toast. That's when the power of the subconscious kicks in. There on the floor are my cycling shoes. Recall that I said I put those on to run errands and I used the bike which I had just scoured the doggie keester cakes encrusted pedals. Without conscious thought I pick them up and walk out to the deck. Sure enough there is doggie keester cakes packed into the cleats of the shoes.
So, I had stepped into doggie keester cakes while doing that electrical work. But it wasn't like walking through a yard. I trod through it repeatedly enough to get it all over both shoes. Then I rode home getting it into the pedals of my bicycle. While riding again, this time wearing my cycling cleats, it gets packed into them. I cleaned one shoe, then the other, then the pedals and finally, later, the cycling shoes. No wonder my house had doggie keester cakes odor in it all damn afternoon.
It's at this point that my buddy, while trying to overcome his laughter, queries as to who else was I doing electrical work for today. I responded that he better watch his step when he gets home and get out the carpet cleaner because I was talking about working at his house. He boisterous chuckles quickly faded.
I don't provide this anecdote to you today for the purpose of comic relief but instead to demonstrate the consequences of failing to abide by a valuable maxim – always consider the cause and collateral results. This is especially true in parenting decisions and child custody litigation.
One of my best examples is the father who comes to me to assist he and his attorney with an upcoming custody hearing. They had amassed the evidence and were ready to demonstrate to the court with their “proof” that the mother had abused and neglected the child. He was convinced that he would leave court that day with custody of his child. I suggested that he could leave court that day on his way to jail. Here is why.
Indiana has a duty to report statute[fn1] that makes it an offense if you suspect child abuse or neglect and don't report it to appropriate authorities. Their strategy was to begin with the testimony of Father, the moving party, as to his awareness of Mother's abuse and neglect of the child for over a year. Although he did much to ameliorate the harmful effects he still knew and didn't report it. Instead, I suggested that he testify as to the actions that he took to ameliorate the negative effects without revealing that it was done in direct response to knowing of the abuse and neglect. Then they could question Mother in a similar manner to reveal her offenses. If she denied everything then they could present their “proof” and likely be assured that Mother's abuse and neglect of the child as well as the lying about it in her testimony would obscure his failure to report.
In the doggie keester cakes debacle I shamefully missed this. I should have checked both shoes. I should have then been able to realize that if it was smeared across the bottom of both shoes then it was going to be on both pedals of the bike on which I rode home. But I didn't. The consequence was that it ended up in the cleats of my cycling shoes.
Effective management of a child custody case requires vigilance and forethought in all parenting actions. It is much the way chess is played – looking for a way to advance your position while ensuring that you are not opening yourself to attack. The further one can anticipate upcoming moves the more successful a player he or she will be.
Proper analysis is a must. When an event occurs think about what precipitated that event, what course of actions followed the event, and what are the possible outcomes from inaction or the various choice of actions and their potential results.
For additionally perspective on how narrow focus – tunnel vision – can taint rational thinking see what I have previously written about unintended consequences HERE. http://bcchildadvocates.blogspot.com/2011/08/unintended-consequences-success.html
Notes
1] IC 31-33-5-1 - Duty to make report. “In addition to any other duty to report arising under this article, an individual who has reason to believe that a child is a victim of child abuse or neglect shall make a report as required by this article.”
While many attorneys and providers are aware of the requirement few are aware of the criminal penalty. IC 31-33-22-1 - Failure to make report. “(a) A person who knowingly fails to make a report required by IC 31-33-5-1 commits a Class B misdemeanor.” That's up to 60 days in jail.
If your clients' case involves an upcoming custody hearing and you want to be best prepared then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Are Wal-Mart Employees the New Police or Potential Thieves?
29 September 2013
I have never been a fan of Wal-Mart. The activities of their employees today only strengthens that resolve. Their past illegal consumer trade activities and other moral transgressions should prevent anyone with good character from visiting and patronizing them. Now, anyone who values their possessions and privacy should be equally as leery of this corporation.
One of those people who I've befriended but whose moral standards don't quite reach my bar conveyed an observation made while patronizing the local Wal-Mart today. The story is that a couple brings their car to the service center at the Lebanon, Indiana Wal-Mart to have the oil changed. An employee while rifling through their vehicle finds a roach clip in the ashtray. The assistant manager reports this to the Lebanon Police Department. Lt. Brent Wheat and two other officers respond and begin an investigation which ultimately results in a citation being issued to the couple for possession.
Having once owned an auto repair garage I am quite familiar with most vehicles and where the hood release, which needs to be activated for an oil-change, is generally located. I have never found it necessary to be in a vehicle going through compartments like the ashtray to complete an oil change. Some people keep coins and other small valuables in their ash trays, cup holders or other compartments around the dashboard area.
Whether Wal-Mart's employees are now acting as a private police force searching vehicles that are brought in for service or just rifling through the vehicles for valuables should be of no concern. Either is an affront to their patrons and an unethical business practice. But for a business that already engages in illegal and immoral activities no one should be surprised by this action.
If your clients' child custody case involves allegations of illegal activity or moral transgressions then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. There is no charge for initial attorney consultations.
If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.
Subscribe to this blawg.
More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.
©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
