17 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
In the area of gender politics there is much blame to go around and outrageous claims coming from every angle. I have long advocated for equality of opportunity for everyone regardless of race, gender or lineage. Yet there exists a great resistance to bringing women into the male realm of being respected for mind and leadership skills over physical attributes. Interestingly this resistance is greatest from females and comes at an early age.
It is my intention here to dispel some of the myths about how a disproportional representation of women is maintained in the areas of business, politics, and law and who is behind it. I also intend to argue that such concepts as equal pay for equal work and proportional representation are false objectives that are inhibiting the advancement of women and will keep them mired in a dead end political quest.
A primary complaint of those pursuing gender equity is that men are considered successful when they express leadership skills, attain higher status in business and exhibit dominance while women are primarily judged upon their physical appearance – suitability to procreate. Often times this is attributed to the rules of a patriarchal society. Applying blame to men for suppressing the status of women through patriarchy, such as a perceived “glass-ceiling”, has been a long-standing mantra of so-called feminist. I contend, however, that there should be no objective to break through this purported glass-ceiling but an effort to bring men down through the glass floor to be more involved in domestic life.
In essence I am saying that the objective should not be for women to foreclose their traditional parenting and family role in pursuit of the material acquisitions and status achievements that represent successful males. Instead, I believe that measuring success based upon achievement of status and material accumulations is a fallacy that has been harmful to society and particularly the family unit. Men should be perceived as successful by balancing being involved in the lives of their children and other domestic functions as well as financial prosperity. Likewise, money should not be a substitute for or means of placating the effects of being an inactive, unattractive slob with a poor physique.
Women though are measured primarily by means of their physical attributes. The greatest scorn, ridicule and pressure to achieve nearly unattainable body images comes from girls. The message that girls tacitly express to each other is that, as a sex, they are not worthy of first being measured by something other than physical appearance. This is done first through the collective application of make-up. The direct message from these girls to each other is that as you naturally appear is not acceptable to your female friends and most certainly not your males peers.
Girls and boys also display a profound difference in the way they tease or insult each other. Boys for the most part demean one another by appealing to flawed character traits and when it is physical the insults are more apt to be based upon strength or stature. Girls on the other hand let the insults fly which are primarily directed toward one's physical appearance – often sexuality, even among younger pre-adolescent. So from an early age girls are programming themselves and their peers to evaluate one another based upon physical appearance and to use such as the measure of one's stature.
I further argue that while men do need to be more sensitive to their use of physical appearance when rating women that it is women who need to take the initiative. I would be thoroughly pleased if not another one of those fashion magazines that feature computer enhanced images of female models, that are produced by women and overly emphasize physical appearance as a measure of worth never made its way into the hands of a young girl again. But such is unlikely to be the case in a free market economy where supply meets demand. We must collectively work to reduce the demand on women to hyper-focus on physical appearance to the detriment of their character traits and skill base. A good place to start would be in boycotting the cosmetics industry.
Women tend to reduce themselves in stature by playing victim status. This is apparent in the false claim of a so-called earnings gap – same work, different pay rates -- which clearly does not exist. The latest number going around is that women only get paid 77% of what men do for the same work. It simply isn't so. I have sent both males and females to the personnel departments at various industries around my community and always found the same results – pay rate was not dependent upon gender. The fast food restaurant that promoted on their sign board “Now hiring closers, $10/hr” said that the rate was not adjusted based upon the sex of the applicant. There is some validation to the claim when it is placed in the context of rates of production.
To demonstrate the difference in production I will use an analogy of legal counseling. You could have your neighbor sit down with you and your attorney and advise you on child custody matters. You could select a church leader to do that. You could select me to do that. Any of us could dedicate the same amount of time at that session, print out and distribute the applicable law, and type away on the computer taking notes. But of those three I stand resolute in my proclamation that I would be the most productive in formulating your litigation scheme. Thus, while I am providing the same amount of work my pay rate should rightfully be much higher than the inexperienced neighbor who, although having never been involved in child custody litigation, did the same amount of work. Productivity is where a pay disparity is achieved and is justified.
Women have traditionally taken it upon themselves to be in the employ of others in fields that do not produce as much income and are therefore subject to lesser pay. I see it in the field of law that is becoming more infused with women. Law is a technical science but such rigid structuring is at odds with the needs of children and families who are in domestic relations turmoil.
It has been my learned experience that if a female judge sits on the bench that there is more likely to be a better outcome for everyone involved. While brilliant legal minds cross the lines of gender I believe that we have farther to go in acknowledging that. Women should embrace, compliment and reward the achievements of their counterparts in fields such as law or other academic achievements. But when a female post a photo of herself on Facebook after having a makeover which is then juxtaposed to the photo of her receiving an award for academic excellence the makeover photo will receive many more 'likes' and comments of praise than the academic achievement. Most disturbing is that the praises lauded upon the “beauty queen” will come from other women.
The final point that I propose is that seeking proportional representation based upon any birth trait demographic conflicts with the objective of being offered equal opportunities, accepted as individuals and judged upon their merits. The idea that we must have mandated numbers of legislators or other power brokers commensurate with the population distribution by gender I believe is insulting to women in that is says you don't possess the necessary attributes so we have to give you the position. It is also highly insulting to men such as myself who put forth effort to encourage and support opportunities for women to advance their position and status. I recently attended a symposium by the Indiana Commission on Women where the proportional representation issue was also raised. Implicit in the call for creating novel approaches to achieving gender representation parity is that women's issues or positions are not worthy of universal support but can only be supported by women. I feel that issues related to those which fall outside the realm of physical appearance are important and that the greatest barrier to those issues being recognized is not a patriarchal society but sabotage from other women. Particularly those who who objectify themselves.
The goal of everyone should be that we are all respected for intrinsic skills and abilities which we manifest into production for the greater good of our society. That while a physical appearance judgment spanning a wide swath of disciplines is useful and legitimate neither should it be the basis for determining one's worth. Women in particular need to stop facilitating this measure of character. To do so they must first cease objectifying themselves.
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, February 18, 2014
Girls are Defeating Women in Business, Politics and Law
Friday, February 14, 2014
Update on amending the 2014 Indiana Child Support Guidelines
14 February 2014 2015 Indiana Child Support Guidelines * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
review scheduled for public comment
Maybe it is my sense of sick irony or a hint of caution that I post about this subject today.
The Domestic Relations Committee [DRC] of the Indiana Judicial Center [IJC] will meet again in regular session for the purpose of formalizing procedures for amending the Indiana Child Support Guidelines [ICSG] on Friday 21 February 2014 at the IJC. The DRC is a panel of 12 judicial officers who make recommendations to the Indiana Supreme Court [INSC] for rules relating to domestic relations cases. By federal statute each state is required to review their child support guidelines at least every four years.
As part of the review process the DRC will be taking testimony from the public in both written form and orally. This information will be posted on the INSC webpage as well as by me when I receive it. If you would like to receive updates from me just send a request to my scheduler using the link below.
I anticipate that the DRC will be taking oral testimony from members of the public on Friday 16 May 2014 beginning at 10:00a.m. In the chambers of the INSC which is on the third floor of the Indiana State House at the north end. This is not an official date. I only provide it to give you a heads up as to when it may be so that you may plan accordingly. As soon as I find out a firm date I will do another update posting. Please do not contact the IJC as you will only get referred to the INSC website.
The IJC is located at 30 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis. The DRC meetings are open to the public but are not public input sessions. At the discretion of the Chair the DRC does sometimes elicit input from visitors. Please contact my scheduler if you would like to be added to the guest list.
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.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Indiana Senate Allows HJR3 Marriage Amendment to be Engrossed on Second Reading - Amendment will not appear on 2014 Ballot
13 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
In what appears to be a calculated move to get HJR3 on the ballot the Indiana Senate today allowed HJR3 to be engrossed on second reading. By not amending the House version the Senate could vote to approve the engrossed resolution thereby allowing the next session of the Indiana General Assembly to consider the resolution. When the House amended the Resolution earlier in the session by removing the repressive Second Sentence it was no longer the version passed by the previous Assembly. Thus, the proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution will not appear on the 2014 Ballot. A proposed constitutional amendment must pass two Assemblies before being tendered to the voters by referendum.
HJR3 Marriage Amendment is a resolution to define marriage in the Indiana Constitution as between one man and one woman.
Second Sentence, which would have barred government actors from recognizing relationships similar to marriage, was removed by amendment in the House where the measure passed by a vote of 57-40. You may read my Report to the Senate on Second Sentence to learn how it would impact Indiana Child Custody cases.
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 12, 2014
Indiana HJR3 Passed Senate Committee - Danger of reintroducing Second Sentence by floor amendment
12 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
For those of us who are concerned about the impact that Second Sentence in HJR3 would have on children reared in domestic partnerships as well as those partners who were the subjects of Domestic Violence the removal of Second Sentence by the House was a welcomed relief. After being moved from the House Judiciary Committee where it had stalled the Resolution passed out of the House Committee on Elections by the expected 9-3 vote. Eight amendments were proposed on the House Floor. The Resolution passed the House by a vote of 52-43 as amended by removing Second Sentence. On 10 February 2014 the House version passed out of the Senate Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure by a vote of 8-4. It now moves to the full Senate.
Like in the House the Resolution could be amended on the Senate Floor. The possibility exists that the Resolution could be amended to reintroduce Second Sentence. That extremely broad prohibition on State recognition of relationships similar to marriage could have an extremely adverse impact on some children. I explained in Same-Gender Parents and Child Custody Decisions – a report I submitted to the Senate Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure – how Second Sentence would impact Indiana Child Custody cases. I concluded that report by stating:
HJR3 now heads to the full Senate for a vote on Thursday 13 February 2014 during the 1:30 p.m. Session. If it passes as amended then it will go before the next session of the Indiana General Assembly in 2015.
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, February 11, 2014
Mothers of Lost Children promoting policies of harm to children and gender discrimination in child custody cases to the US Congress
11 February 2014
notes * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The arena of child custody battles can lead to some of the most vile, hostile, and divisive behaviours parents can express which can be detrimental to the well-being of children. When these offenders get organized and perpetuate their hate as a group the outcomes can be even more detrimental. One such hate-group is Mothers of Lost Children.
As an advocate for the well-being of children and knowing the needs that they have, especially when their parents are going through divorce, I am keenly aware of the necessity of maintaining gender neutrality in child custody laws and policies. Gender neutrality allows judges to make decisions that consider the needs of the children first. The danger with hate-groups like Mothers of Lost Children is that they are motivated to eliminate one gender of parents from the lives of children based solely upon their selfish interest. Creating state policies which discard adverse factors – that either gender may exhibit -- such as mental illness, Domestic Violence, neglect or abuse in favour of gender based considerations puts children into dangerous situations.
Gender neutrality is the only legitimate means by which to advocate for the best interest of children. I am usually reticent to embrace any organization that is gender specific for inclusion into the policy formulation forum. This is not to say that they can't have legitimacy, as presentation of perceptions or needs generally attributable to a specific gender should be recognized. Gender specificity is surely justifiable in support or a particular gender but not so in policy application. As previously mentioned mental illness, Domestic Violence, neglect or abuse are not gender specific. All are found to be attributable to mothers in greater frequency while generally in greater intensity among fathers. To effectively manage and mitigate these incidents they should be approached in a gender specific manner but not to the exclusion of a gender from acts adverse to children.
I long ago seemed to catch the ire of father's rights groups by my inconsonance with their agenda when I proclaimed that most NCP – which are overwhelmingly fathers -- are deserving of that status. Like most of those boisterous and hostile leaders of father's rights groups, Mothers of Lost Children are just as likely NCP's because of their behaviours. Some of which are aptly demonstrated in their actions of attacking the character of any person who recommends that they not be the primary custodians. This behaviour is identical to what I saw in some of the most veracious and vindictive father's rights groups. Blaming society, corruption and, fathers for the damage these mothers have cause to their own parent-child relationships supports the rulings against them. These behaviours reflect their failure to accept responsibility. The hallmark of my child custody based life coaching – usually of NCPs – is that parents accept responsibility for their predicament.
Mothers of Lost Children recently sent out an announcement about their efforts to spread their message of bigotry. There they stated: “Many thanks to Andrew Willis of Stop Abuse Campaign for his crucial help in getting us a Congressional Briefing on October 2! We now have the issue of Protecting Abused Children of Divorce and Separation deep into the halls of Congress.” They go on to say “[f]our brave mothers filed a joint complaint on November 6, 2013 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, against a variety of judges, court professionals and other officials in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.”[fn1] This is one of the tactics they use – attacking anyone who doesn't make a gender based decision siding with them – to intimidate those people who would seek to protect children from abusive mothers.
Their overwhelming bias and lack of concern for protecting children from all harmful parents is apparent in their request for parents to join in their judicial and legislative efforts. Specifically they say that “mothers from other states can join” and then they ask for the identity of the “partner/husband.” The evidentiary information they seek is only that which would be detrimental towards fathers;
“Criminal record (arrests and convictions)”,
“Reports of physical or sexual assault/battery and/or incest”, and
“Intimidation against you that deterred you from reporting”.
They then ask for information about who was responsible for the “Removal of child(ren) from you after you reported criminal physical or sexual assault/battery and/or incest.” Not surprising is that nowhere do they ask for court findings that substantiate their allegations or why they did not get custody of their children. Neither of those factors could support their agenda.
Mothers of Lost Children encourages the use of filing petitions for Domestic Violence Protective Orders as a means of absconding with the children and severing a parent-child relationship even when no act of or threat of Domestic Violence is alleged. An obviously bigoted and deceitful approach to child custody decisions should not be tolerated and Mothers of Lost Children should be ignored but they aren't. Those who do not join in their crusade to harm children are targeted for acts of intimidation and being publicly rebuked. After I was requested to make a presentation to the Indiana General Assembly on the subject of false allegations of Domestic Violence in child custody cases and my efforts to bring about gender neutrality and truth in DV cases I was personally vilified by the hate-group Mothers of Lost Children.
It is always my goal to promote healthy parent-child relationships in child custody cases. Yesterday I presented a Report to the Indiana Senate on the effect that banning civil unions would have on child custody. I am currently working with some legislators on crafting a bill that will provide opportunities for people involved in Domestic Violence to be entitled to assistance in breaking free from that. Included in my legislative proposal for Assessment-Treatment Confidentiality for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence I provide a copy of a Petition for an Order of Protection that did not include an allegation of abuse [page 12, paragraph 7].
That Petition was written by Angie Warnock. Particularly when I wrote about the murder of Angie Warnock and revealed how the alienation tactics she used which included filing that Petition I was again vilified by these hate-mongers. Interestingly when I wrote that posting I knew nothing about the case other than what I had read in the brief newspaper account which is included at the beginning of that posting. Instead I relied upon my years of experience in the field where I have identified traits that are common to particular personality dysfunctions such as parental alienation.
It should be the goal of all responsible parents to eliminate harms to their children. Unfortunately when one group of mentally ill unfit parents get together and collectively support each others' delusions it has the effect of perpetuating harm against their own children.
Being blinded to the reality of one's own behaviour because of an allegiance to one's demographic classification and clear expressions of their mental illness is the formula which allows the rational judicial officers to make the proper decisions which protect the children. We should be thankful for the “variety of judges, court professionals and other officials in Rhode Island and Massachusetts” who are standing up against these hateful parents who try to alienate the children.
Over the years I have served numerous parents who endured ongoing hostile parent-parent relationships. By facilitating acceptance of the parent's responsibility for his or her custodial situation and recognition of the responsibility of the judicial officers parents can progress toward an understanding of the dynamics the lead to better outcomes for children. These outcomes are not a result of policies favouring one gender over the other but in parents, regardless of gender, recognizing that it their behaviours and their responsibility to ensure the best outcomes for their children.
If you care for the well-being of children and believe that child custody decisions should be made based upon the facts of the case and the behaviours of the parents rather than a mandated award of custody based upon gender then please call or write your congressional representative and tell him or her so.
[1] retrieved from Equal Access Advocates, http://www.equalaccessadvocates.com/2013/11/24/ca-protective-parents-association/ 27 November 2013
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 5, 2014
Agnostic Parents more likely to retain custody of their children - Magistrate George G. Pancol died at age 87.
05 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
A Madison County Indiana magistrate died peacefully at his home on the morning of Tuesday 04 February 2014. George G. Pancol, age 87, was the judicial officer who gained notoriety in 2010 for stripping an Anderson man of the custody of his children because Pancol found him unfit to parent because the man changed his religious preference from Christian to agnostic.
I wrote about the notice of appeal filed in that case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a Stay which had the effect of returning the children's father to the children.
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, February 4, 2014
Increasing School Choice and Charter School Accommodation - 2014 Indiana Senate Bill 0205
04 February 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
A bill that would allow non-utilized public buildings to be leased to charter schools for a nominal fee is making its way through the Indiana Senate. Senators Banks, Kruse, and Yoder have introduced the bill that will make buildings available to charter schools that would otherwise remain unoccupied and result in a financial burden on the government agency owner through maintenance and repairs.
Here is the Synopsis of the bill:
Charter schools. Requires an authorizer to submit an annual
report of certain information to the state board and the public. Prohibits
an authorizer from requiring a charter school authorized by the
authorizer to enter into a commercial contract with the authorizer.
Limits the length of a charter agreement to not more than seven years.
Requires municipal corporations and the Indiana department of
administration to notify the department of education of vacant or
unused buildings that are suitable for classroom use so that the
buildings are included in an annual list of buildings available for sale
or lease by charter schools. Requires the state board to establish a
process to be used if more than one charter school applies to purchase
or lease the same vacant or unused public building.
For the most part this bill provides an expansion from only school corporations to include all municipal corporations as those entities who may enter into contracts to lease a building suitable for classroom use. The bill also provides a conflict of interest section and the following section that addresses competing requests for building usage;
The state board shall establish a process to use if more than one (1) charter school sends a letter of intent under subsection (i) to purchase or lease the same vacant or unused building. The state board shall assign weighted values to each charter school's:
(1) academic quality;
(2) financial health;
(3) community impact; and
(4) program design;
to evaluate the competing charter schools. If two (2) or more competing charter schools each receive the same total score on the evaluation, the state board shall conduct a random drawing at a public meeting to determine which charter school may purchase or lease the vacant or unused building.
This proposition, if adopted into law, will give to more parents and students the opportunity to receive the education that meets the needs of the children. Not only will greater choice be achieved but it will be done so at a lower cost. It will also likely result in more 25mph school zones but you can just join me in riding a bicycle around and not be annoyed by having to reduce driving speed.
This bill was read for the second time in the Senate as amended.
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.
