Stuart Showalter is a child custody policy advisor to Indiana state policy makers as well as attorneys on child custody cases. For parents he offers child custody based life coaching to help them maintain control of their lives, increase their fitness as parents and manage their litigation so they can truly serve the best interest of their children. He provides this Law Blog as free opinion on various issues. Reader submissions of topics are welcomed. Send to Stuart@StuartShowalter.com
Senator Jim Buck has authored Senate Bill 250 relating to parenting coordination. The bill provides for judicial officers to appoint a parenting coordinator in child custody cases involving parties “who demonstrate ongoing high conflict or inability to effectively resolve issues . . .”
To serve as a parenting coordinator,an individual must be registered as an Indiana domestic relations mediator under Rule 2.5(B) of the Indiana Supreme Court Rules for Alternative Dispute Resolution and be an attorney licensed to practice law in Indiana with substantial experience in family law or be licensed as a mental health counselor under IC 25-23.6-8.5 with substantial experience working with high conflict parties.
Cost provisions provide that the court may consider whether other funds are available to pay for a parenting coordinator if a party is indigent or of limited income.
The initial term of appointment of a parenting coordinator must be defined in the order of appointment, but may not exceed sixty days. The initial term of appointment may be extended in sixty day terms upon agreement by the parties or by the court's own motion. The order of appointment must require that the parenting coordinator meet with each party at least three times during the initial term of appointment.
I have contact Senator Bray, Chair of the Committee on Civil Law, and asked him to set this bill for hearing. I have contacted Senator Buck and offered three amendments [italicized] to the bill as detailed below.
Sec. 6(c) A written agreement among the parties and parenting coordinator must detail specific issues, including the payment of fees and billing practices of the parenting coordinator. If a written agreement among the parties and parenting coordinator is not reached, the court shall apportion the fees of the parenting coordinator among the parties in the order of appointment, with each party bearing the part of the fees the court determines is just and equitable. [A court may revisit the determination of the apportionment of fees at any time upon its own motion, the request of any party, or the recommendation of the parenting coordinator.]
Reason: I have seen one case in particular where the wealthy parent created disputes for what appeared to be the sole purpose of running up the PC fees which were to be paid equally regardless. Knowing that one could be assessed with 100% or any lesser portion of the fees for such behaviour should help to reduce those types of actions and promote cooperation.
Sec. 7(b) If the parties are not able to resolve a dispute with assistance from the parenting coordinator, the parenting coordinator may submit written recommendations and written reports to the court for further consideration. [If any party requests court action to resolve the dispute then the parenting coordinator shall submit written recommendations and written reports, which include assessing responsibility for the impasse, to the court for further consideration] Recommendations and reports submitted to the court by the parenting coordinator must explain how the recommended change is expected to benefit the family and child. The parenting coordinator shall provide copies of the parenting coordinator's recommendations and reports to the parties once submitted to the court.
Reason: If an issue comes on for hearing I believe it would be helpful to a court to have a report from the PC as to who may have been recalcitrant, unyielding, or otherwise not helping the process of achieving agreements beneficial to the child.
Sec. 8(h) A parenting coordinator may not serve in a matter, or in multiple roles in a matter, that creates [or appears to create] a conflict of interest. The parenting coordinator shall refrain from associations that benefit the parenting coordinator, directly or indirectly, except from services as a parenting coordinator.
Reason: While those of us with a legal mind may easily discern a true conflict from appearance, a parent in a hostile relationship having a very subjective mindset may not have confidence in the PC if it appears to him or her that a conflict exists.
There does exist conflicting opinions as to whether courts have the authority to impose parenting coordination on parents. The 2010 opinion by the Indiana Court of Appeals in Paternity of CH upheld a court's imposition of parenting cordination where the record revealed that in court Mother had consented to such. Members of the Domestic Relations Committee at that time generally agreed that they could not impose the costs of parenting coordination on the parties.
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.
Most bills of the 2016 Session of the Indiana General Assembly have now been posted to the legislative website. I have identified the following bills as possibly having an impact upon child custody, child support, Domestic Violence, or child well-being. These were taken from the legislative website today. Numerous bills have been assigned different numbers than those previously entered on the website so what you may have previously been told may not correspond to the current numbers. Bill numbers are being changed on a daily basis. I will try to update this list frequently.
I will update this page with information about the progress of these bills and links to individual postings [DETAILS] as I write about them. I encourage you to "like" or bookmark this posting and check regularly for these updates.
Senate bills SB 14: Child exploitation and child pornography. [Corrections and Criminal Law - Second Reading in the Senate 21 January 2016] Makes the offense of child exploitation a Level 4 felony instead of a Level 5 felony if the offense involves, depicts, or describes a child less than 18 years of age who: (1) engages in bestiality; (2) is mentally disabled or deficient; (3) participates in the sexual conduct, matter, performance, or incident by use of force or the threat of force; (4) physically or verbally resists participating in the sexual conduct, matter, performance, or incident; (5) receives a bodily injury while participating in the sexual conduct, matter, performance, or incident; or (6) is less than 12 years of age. Makes the offense of possession of child pornography a Level 5 felony instead of a Level 6 felony if the offense involves, depicts, or describes sexual conduct by a child who the defendant knows is less than 18 years of age, or who appears to be less than 18 years of age, who: (1) engages in bestiality; (2) is mentally disabled or deficient; (3) participates in the sexual conduct by use of force or the threat of force; (4) physically or verbally resists participating in the sexual conduct; (5) receives a bodily injury while participating in the sexual conduct; or is less than 12 years of age. Adds the crime of child exploitation to the definition of "crime of violence" for purposes of the law concerning a court's determination whether terms of imprisonment should be served concurrently or consecutively. (A person who commits a "crime of violence" may receive a longer sentence.) Makes conforming amendments.
Update 08 January 2016 by Judicial Center The Senate Committee on Corrections & Criminal Law heard SB 14 authored by Sen. Head on child exploitation and child pornography. The bill (1) enhances those offenses by one level if the offense involves depiction of bestiality, a mentally disabled child, force or threat of force against the victim, or the victim receives a bodily injury while participating in the depicted conduct; and (2) classifies child exploitation as a “crime of violence” permitting a longer sentence. Sen. Head explained that while a simple nude photo of a child is bad, video of violent sex acts against a child are much worse and should carry harsher penalties. The Shelby County Prosecutor and a representative from the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council testified in favor of the bill. The bill was amended by consent to broaden the enhanced offense to apply if the victim meets any of the enhancing circumstances even if they are not depicted as such, or if the victim is under the age 12. The amended bill passed 7-0. SB 26: Children in need of services. [Judiciary - 26 January 2016 Passed the Senate 49-0]
Provides that a child is a child in need of services if the child lives in the same household as an adult who: (1) committed certain offenses; or (2) has been charged with certain offenses and is awaiting trial. Makes conforming amendments.
Update 22 January 2016 by Judicial Center The Senate Judiciary Committee heard SB 26 authored by Sen. Steele on children in need of services. The bill creates a presumption that a child is a child in need of services if the child is living in the same household as an adult who (1) committed certain offenses, or (2) has been charged with certain offenses and is awaiting trial.
Marion Superior Court Judge Marilyn Moores and the Department of Child Services testified in support of the bill concept but raised issues of concern. The bill is expected to be amended on second reading. The bill passed 9-0. SB 82: Rape and termination of parental rights. [Judiciary - 05 January 2016 First Reading] [DETAILS] Allows a parent who is the victim of an act of rape from which a child was conceived to file a petition to terminate the parent-child relationship between the child and the alleged perpetrator of the act of rape. Requires a court to terminate the parent-child relationship if the court finds: (1) by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged perpetrator committed an act of rape against the parent who filed the petition to terminate the parent-child relationship and that the child was conceived as a result of the act of rape; and (2) that terminating the parent-child relationship would be in the best interests of the child. Prohibits a parent who is at least 18 years of age at the time the act of rape occurred from filing a petition more than 180 days after the birth of the child. Prohibits a parent who is less than 18 years of age at the time the act of rape occurred from filing a petition more than 2 years after becoming 18 years of age. (The introduced version of this bill was prepared by the study committee on corrections and the criminal code. SB 90: Juvenile release by intake officers. [Corrections and Criminal Law - 26 January 2016 Passed the Senate 49-0]
Allows an intake officer to impose conditions upon the release of a child who was not taken into custody under an order of the court.
Update 22 January 2016 by Judicial Center The Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee heard SB 90 authored by Sen. Zakas on conditional juvenile release by intake officers. The bill permits a juvenile intake officer to impose conditions (home detention, curfew restrictions, etc.) upon a juvenile’s release to a parent, guardian, or custodian, if the child was not taken into custody under a court order.
Sen. Zakas introduced the bill together with an amendment written in collaboration with the Indiana Judicial Center to require a hearing regarding those conditions within 48 hours; and to permit DCS to object within 3 business days to any condition that requires DCS to provide services to the child. The bill was amended by consent, and passed 8-0.
SB 119: Child in need of services (CHINS). [Judiciary - 05 January 2016 First Reading]
Establishes a rebuttable presumption that a child is a child in need of services (CHINS) if the child: (1) is a victim of human or sexual trafficking; or (2) lives in the same household as another child who is a victim of human or sexual trafficking, or in the same household as an adult who is charged with or convicted of a human or sexual trafficking offense. SB 185: Child Exploitation. [Corrections and Criminal Law - 06 January 2016 First Reading]
Increases the criminal penalty for the offense of: (1) child exploitation from a Level 5 felony to a Level 4 felony; (2) child exploitation involving a child less than 12 years of age from a Level 5 felony to a Level 3 felony; (3) possession of child pornography from a Level 6 felony to a Level 5 felony; and (4) possession of child pornography involving a child less than 12 years of age from a Level 6 felony to a Level 4 felony. SB 190: Child abuse or neglect in military families. [Family and Children Services - Third Reading in the Senate 21 January 2016]
Requires the department of child services (department) to notify the United States Department of Defense family advocacy program (program) if a child of an active duty member of the military is the subject of an assessment regarding an allegation of abuse or neglect. Allows: (1) the program to receive the assessment report; and (2) the department to use services offered by the program in resolving a case. SB 198: Domestic Battery. [Corrections and Criminal Law - 21 January 2016 Passed 48-0] [DETAILS] Removes the sentencing enhancement for battery committed against a family or household member in the presence of a child from the battery statute and places it in the domestic battery statute. Specifies that numerous provisions in the battery statute constitute domestic battery if they are committed against a family or household member. Makes conforming amendments.
Update 12 January, 2016 by Judicial Center - The Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee heard SB 198 concerning domestic battery authored by Sen. Crider. The author explained that this bill is a recodification bill attempting to clean up the domestic violence statutes and make them more usable and does not substantively alter the domestic violence laws. It specifically removes the sentencing enhancement for battery committed against a family or household member in the presence of a child from the battery statute and places it in the domestic battery statute and specifies that numerous provisions in the battery statute constitute domestic battery if they are committed against a family or household member.
A technical amendment was adopted by consent. A representative from the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence testified in support of the bill. The bill passed as amended 9-0. SB 199: Age for compulsory school attendance. [Education and Career Development - 06 January 2016 First Reading]
Provides that a student shall enroll in a kindergarten program not later than the fall term of the school year if the student is five years of age on August 1 of that school year. (Current law requires that a student enroll in a kindergarten class not later than the fall term of the school year in which the student becomes seven years of age.) Makes conforming amendments. SB 236: Child in need of services matters. [Family and Children Services - 07 January 2016 First Reading]
Provides that if a child is a victim of human or sexual trafficking, vicarious sexual gratification, child solicitation, patronizing a prostitute, or promoting prostitution, the child may be a child in need of services. Provides that certain children may be children in need of services if they live in the same household as: (1) a child who is a victim of certain sex crimes; or (2) an adult who has been convicted of or charged with certain sex crimes. SB 250: Parenting coordinators. [Civil Law] [DETAILS] - [01 February 2016 Passed the Senate 44-5]
Allows for the appointment of parenting coordinators to assist in disputes regarding custody and parenting matters. Provides qualification requirements of a parenting coordinator, terms of appointment of a parenting coordinator, and termination of parenting coordinator services. Requires a parenting coordinator to remain impartial and meet confidentiality requirements.
Update 29 January 2016 by Judicial Center The Senate Civil Law committee heard SB 250 addressing parenting coordinators authored by Sen. Buck. Sen. Buck introduced the bill explaining he is concerned about the well-being of children in high conflict custody cases. The bill allows for the appointment of parenting coordinators to assist in disputes regarding custody and parenting matters. The bill also provides qualification requirements of a parenting coordinator, terms of appointment of a parenting coordinator, and termination of parenting coordinator services. Lastly, the bill requires a parenting coordinator to remain impartial and meet confidentiality requirements. Sen. Buck then introduced an amendment to assign the topic of the use of parenting coordinators in resolving custody disputes to an interim study committee for further analysis. The senator explained that this amendment was submitted based upon his subsequent understanding of an Indiana Supreme Court proposal under advisement for parenting coordination guidelines.
The amendment was adopted by consent. Jane Seigel, Indiana Judicial Center, testified supporting the amendment and the bill passed 6-0.
SB 269: School discipline. [Education and Career Development - 07 January 2016 First Reading]
Requires charter schools and nonpublic schools that accept choice scholarships to adopt written discipline rules in the same manner as school corporations. Removes a good faith effort exception to the requirement of giving general publicity to the written discipline rules. SB 349: Juvenile detention matters. [Judiciary - 07 January 2016 First Reading]
Allows an intake officer to impose conditions upon the release of a child who was not taken into custody under an order of the court. Includes weekends and holidays in the 48 hour calculation for detention hearings or probable cause determination hearings. SB 354: Sex crimes that involve children. [Corrections and Criminal Law - 11 January 2016 First Reading]
Makes child exploitation a Level 4 felony instead of a Level 5 felony. Makes possession of child pornography a Level 5 felony instead of a Level 6 felony. Removes a defense to the crime of prostitution that the person who committed the crime was a child who was less than 18 years of age, and provides that a child who is less than 18 years of age may not be: (1) charged with; or (2) convicted of; committing the crime of prostitution. Makes patronizing a prostitute a: (1) Level 6 felony instead of a Class A misdemeanor if a person has a prior conviction for patronizing a prostitute; and (2) Level 5 felony instead of a Class A misdemeanor if a person paid, or offered payment to, a child who is less than 18 years of age. Makes promoting prostitution a Level 3 felony instead of a Level 4 felony if the person enticed or compelled is a child who is less than 18 years of age. Makes conforming amendments. SB 357: Registry of convicted child abusers. [Judiciary] [DETAILS] - [27 January 2016 Passed Committee 7-0]
Defines "crime of child abuse" and requires the state police department (department) to establish an electronic child abuse registry containing information relating to persons convicted of a crime of child abuse. Requires the department to adopt rules to establish a procedure permitting a person erroneously included in the registry to obtain relief. Update 29 January 2016 by Judicial Center
The Senate Judiciary Committee heard Sen Yoder’s SB 357 creating a registry of convicted child abusers. This bill defines “crime of child abuse” and requires the State Police Department (department) to establish an electronic child abuse registry containing information relating to persons convicted of a crime of child abuse. It also requires the department to adopt rules to establish a procedure permitting a person erroneously included in the registry to obtain relief.
A representative of the Indiana State Police testified that 80% of these people are already on the sex offender registry and about their concern for the cost of creating the registry. The bill passed 7-0.
House bills HB 1064: Terminating the parent-child relationship. [Judiciary - 25 January 2016 Passed the House 93-0] [DETAILS] Allows a parent who is the victim of an act of rape from which a child was conceived to file a petition to terminate the parent-child relationship between the child and the alleged perpetrator of the act of rape. Requires a court to terminate the parent-child relationship if the court finds: (1) by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged perpetrator committed an act of rape against the parent who filed the petition to terminate the parent-child relationship and that the child was conceived as a result of the act of rape; and (2) that terminating the parent-child relationship would be in the best interests of the child. Prohibits a parent who is at least 18 years of age at the time the act of rape occurred from filing a petition more than 180 days after the birth of the child.
Update 11 January 2016 - This bill passed out of the Judiciary committee by a vote of 13-0. HB 1069: No contact orders and battery. [Courts and Criminal Code - 02 February 2016 Passed the House 94-0]
Allows a petition to be filed with the juvenile court to order a person to refrain from contact with a member of a foster family home. Makes battery a Level 6 felony if the offense is committed against a member of a foster family home by a relative of a person living in the foster family home. HB 1183: Guardianship; department of child services. [Family, Children and Human Affairs - 02 February 2016 Passed the House 97-0] [DETAILS] Provides that a delegation of power by a properly executed power of attorney does not subject the parties to any laws, rules, or regulations concerning the licensing or regulation of foster family homes, child placing agencies, or child caring institutions. Prohibits a licensed foster family home from providing supervision to a child who is the subject of a power of attorney while providing overnight care to a child placed in the foster family home unless the department of child services (department) grants an exception. Allows a parent to delegate the powers for a period longer than 12 months if the parent is on active duty service, except that the term of delegation may not exceed the term of active duty service plus 30 days. Provides that the department may provide information about community service programs that provide respite care, voluntary guardianship, or other support services for families in crisis to the parent or guardian of a child who is the subject of an assessment if the department classifies the assessment as unsubstantiated. Provides that: (1) if the department provides the information to a parent or guardian, the department may not initiate an investigation or assessment or substantiate an assessment of child abuse or neglect based solely on the provision of the information; and (2) the department is not liable for any action arising out of having furnished the information. HB 1223: Issues relating to the death of a minor. [Judiciary - 11 January 2016 First Reading] [DETAILS] Provides that if a minor child dies, the parent awarded: (1) sole legal custody; or (2) primary physical custody (if joint legal custody was awarded to the parents); is the parent who may decide issues regarding the disposition of the child's body, including autopsy, cremation, funeral arrangements, or anatomical gifts. HB 1271: Child abuse or neglect allegations in military families. [Family, Children and Human Affairs - 26 January 2016 Passed the House 96-0]
Requires the department of child services (department) to notify the United States Department of Defense Family Advocacy Program (program) if a child of an active duty member of the military is the subject of an assessment regarding an allegation of abuse or neglect. Requires the department to make the assessment report available to the program upon request.
Update 22 January 2016 by Judicial Center The House Family, Children and Human Affairs Committee heard HB 1271, child abuse or neglect allegations in military families, authored by Rep. Zent. This bill requires the Department of Child Services (DCS) to notify the U.S. Department of Defense Family Advocacy Program (DOD) if a child of an active duty member of the military is the subject of an assessment regarding an allegation of abuse or neglect. It also requires DCS to make the assessment report available to DOD upon request.
The bill was amended by consent to only report substantiated investigations. A representative from DCS testified in support of the amended bill. The amended bill passed, 11-0.
HB1338: Child representatives, foster care, and parenting time. [Judiciary - 12 January 2016 First Reading]
Allows a court to remove a child representative if the: (1) department of child services; or (2) probation officer; demonstrates good cause that the child representative would not act or has not acted in the best interests of the child. Allows certain individuals who are at least 18 years of age to opt out of foster care. Prohibits a court from modifying a previous parenting time order for a parent, guardian, or custodian who is not a part of the allegation of abuse or neglect.
HB 1354: Delegation of parental powers. [Judiciary - 12 January 2016] [DETAILS]
Provides that a delegation of powers by a parent or guardian regarding the health care, support, custody, or property of the minor: (1) is not considered placing the minor in foster care; (2) does not subject any party to foster care licensing or rules; and (3) is not considered abandonment, abuse, or neglect, absent other evidence or unless the parent or guardian fails to contact the attorney-in-fact or execute a new power of attorney upon expiration of the original power of attorney. Permits a parent or guardian in active military service to delegate powers regarding the minor for a period not exceeding the parent's or guardian's term of active duty military service plus 30 days. HB 1367: CHINS and child representatives. [Family, Children and Human Affairs - 12 January 2016 First Reading]
Allows a child representative to: (1) accompany the child to meetings, court hearings, school functions, extracurricular activities, and other activities agreed to between the child and the child representative; and (2) host the child for vacations, overnight visits, holidays, and other situations. Requires the department of child services (department) and the board of directors of the judicial conference of Indiana to adopt rules setting forth the: (1) reasons why an individual may be rejected or terminated as a child representative; and (2) expectations concerning a child representative. Allows certain individuals who are at least 18 years of age and receiving foster care to petition the juvenile court for emancipation. Requires the juvenile court to grant emancipation unless the court determines there is a compelling reason not to grant the petition. Requires certain notices to be sent to a child representative. Provides that child representatives are treated like foster parents in certain situations. Requires the department to consider a child representative if the child needs a foster parent or a new foster parent. Requires a juvenile court to schedule status conferences with a child who is a child in need of services (CHIN). Requires the department to create, make available, and distribute a bill of rights for youth in foster care. HB 1186: Lap and shoulder safety belts on school buses. [Education - 07 January 2016 First Reading] [previously identified as HB1377]
Provides that a school bus or special purpose bus placed into operation after June 30, 2016, that is used to transport elementary school or high school students must be equipped with a 3-point lap and shoulder safety belt (safety belt) at each seating location. Requires the state school bus committee to adopt rules for the design, installation, and use of safety belt systems that must be installed in school buses and special purpose buses. Provides for an exception to the laws concerning other types of passenger restraint systems. Requires each occupant of a school bus or special purpose bus that has a safety belt to have the safety belt properly fastened about the occupant's body at all times when the bus is in motion. Establishes the safety belt revolving loan fund (fund). Requires the department of education to establish a revolving loan program to provide loans from the fund to school corporations to assist school corporations in paying expenses necessary to comply with requirements concerning safety belts on school buses and special purpose buses. Appropriates $10,000,000 to the fund from the state general fund. Makes conforming amendments.
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.
While the current session of the 2016 Indiana General Assembly begins today it marks the tenth year that I will have been engaging in the legislative process in an effort to bring equanimity to Indiana’s child custody and support orders. While I am the most steadfast and active participant I don’t want to maintain that designation nor do I yearn to be unaccompanied in my efforts. I want you to help me lobby for needed reforms. I offer the following suggestions although I make no claim that they are the best, right, or effective way to get this done.
~ You are a person and you represent people
I begin with this because it differentiates us from other lobbyists. We are not seeking a financial gain, we don’t represent a business interest, we are not trying to control people, and we are not asking for a special exemption or favour for ourselves. We are seeking ways to improve the outcomes for all children and parents engaged in child custody matters.
At some point throughout the year I manage to see nearly every legislator, in-person, if only for a brief moment. Ideally though with some legislators I am able to engage in conversations about children, parents, myself, and their lives. We may greet each other with hugs and I may ask about a personal matter they have or their hobby. We relate to each other as people talking about people.
~ Children are the beneficiaries
Rid your legislative vocabulary of phrases such as “I want”, “I deserve”, or “I am entitled” because these go nowhere. Keep in mind that the legislators to who you are speaking either wrote or haven’t changed the statutory language of child custody law which finds its basis in the best interest of the child. By statute what you want or think you are entitled to doesn’t matter. Focus on how desired legislative action will impact the best interest of the child.
~ Father’s rights
The spoken words we use lose much of their impact when reduced to a cold transcript. What follows will not convey the meaning implied until I put it into context.
Legislator to me: “Are you a father’s rights guy?” Merely an information seeking querry? Well, here it is with the inflections spelled out. “Are you some guy down here to bitch about how you got screwed over in your divorce and now you want me to change the law to correct your mistake?” “Father’s rights” carries a stigma with it so ingrained that I implore everyone to avoid mention of it altogether. Instead, regardless of your birth sex, you are a person or parent -- man or woman -- who is seeking to advance the best interest of the children.
In The reasons that men, especially fathers vying for child custody, should be supporting feminism I wrote; Feminism sought to create parity in opportunity and responsibility for people regardless of birth sex. Opponents of the feminist doctrine have perpetuated a patriarchal power structure largely through the guise of an appealing Gender Victimization model. Feminists were essentially 'bought off' from pursuing the feminist agenda. In the realm of child custody and child support policy the patriarchal approach dominated for quite sometime. The “maternal preference” standard which was pervasive in culture, rule and law held that children should, by nature, be placed in the care and control of the mother following divorce. This standard, established prior to no-fault divorce, was rooted in anti-feminism. The primary objective was to keep women out of the workplace – from invading the sanctity of the male dominated business, political, and legal culture. Thus, “spousal maintenance,” high child support payment orders, and custody awards were liberally granted to women.
What I am saying there is that men created the “maternal preference” and placed the responsibility of child rearing on women. Women gladly accepted the role of sole parent because of the lucrative financial windfall resulting from high child support and spousal maintenance orders. For men to cry foul now is disingenuous -- save for the fact that it was their grand fathers and great-grand fathers who bore responsibility for those offenses.
~ Know the opposition and familiarize yourself with pushback
Knowing that the purpose of legislation is for the control and exclusion of others helps one to understand the motivations of people involved in the process. Most business regulation is for the purpose of excluding competitors. It may seem counter intuitive but large airlines, Wal-Mart and other super-corporations seek increased government regulation. This is because their compliance costs to sales ratio is lower thereby making it more difficult for start-up competitors to price compete.
It is necessary to understand why legislation you favour would be opposed not just the reasons opponents state. Don’t erect a wall between the opposition but mingle with them. Understand their motivation and their reasoning. If possible participate in their position forming. Be aware of the basis for which they plan to attack and prepare to counter.
~ Be patient and unselfish
If you want to involve yourself in the legislative process to affect change in your case then stop now. Wait until your case is no longer active and come back to the process then and apply your wisdom from having passed through the experience. Legislators will ask or discern an advocate’s motive. Those who do so for selfish means are quickly discarded. In writing law we look to encompass the typical or common events while leaving the exceptional to be administered on an individual basis. Your unique or extraordinary circumstances will not be addressed by legislation. Be objective in both your desired outcome and motivation. The legislative process is deliberately slow and difficult for the precise reason that laws that may affect the many people for a long period of time should not be put into place by a knee-jerk reaction to a particular event.
HERE you may see the ideas and legislation which I have proposed to legislators this year.
I may have painting a daunting image of the process but if you anticipate participating in the process I want for you to go informed and will realistic expectations. Over the years of my involvement I have watched numerous “advocates” come and go, often following the course of their personal litigation. Their lack of commitment to the general population, greater than their personal circumstances, hinders the effort to make effective change. Those who were revealed to have only been seeking legislative relief for their personal circumstances have created a presumption against every other advocate that comes before the legislature seeking relief. Laws can be changed and ordinary citizens can do it but their efforts must be rational, persuasive, and unselfish.
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.
Typically at this time of year I lament the futility of new year’s resolutions. As the day is upon us that has zero cosmological significance but signifies the beginning of a new calendar year I offer some wisdom to apply during the course of this forthcoming year. What I say here is intended for parents involved in a child custody case as well as those around them acting in a supportive role. Reading this may take awhile but, as you likely have the day off from work, kick back, relax, and enjoy the read.
The following is not intended to take the place of individual counseling but to be a primer to provoke thinking about some of the adaptive strategies that I use to assist parents in understanding their modified parental role, reshaping their perceptions to quell mental disquietude, altering their behaviours to be among those that better serve the emotional well-being of their children which are also more favoured by courts, and to improving their relationships with their children and the other parent.
The basis for my admonitions against traditional new year’s resolutions is that few lead to fruition because they lack intrinsically motivation. Most are a response to the outside stimulus of the social pressure to conform to that tradition.
When it comes to changing child custody or support payment orders parents are not lacking in intrinsic motivation to do so. Yet so often, few will act to make the change. The reasons vary but I have observed consistent patterns in parents during the 10 years I have been providing counseling services to them. It is these domains of action that affect interpersonal relationships which I will discuss in this post.
Before proceeding to examine the individual domains the matter of assigning responsibility must first be broached. I will go into greater detail further along in this post but to get a general concept of how responsibility is culturally misattributed please read WXIN FOX59 News Director is an Illogical Buffoon and Accepting Responsibility and Why I won't take some people as clients.
Conforming to societal norms
Not every thought, opinion, or feeling we possess is pleasant. When these are not aligned with actions the mind is befallen by the dissonance of that conflict. To advance along the relationship continuum an abreaction can be beneficial to both the person disclosing and the one receiving. Politeness or the modern phenomenon of a pervasive fear of offending anyone leaves many a parent in want of an outlet for their true feelings.
Advice is unloaded onto parents during times of marital breakdown and child custody contests. Some may be solicited from attorneys, mental health professionals, friends, family, and others. Some of these same people may obtrude, providing unwelcomed advice often weighted by the nature of the relationship to the parent. Some people feel that their role in the life of a parent obligates the parent to show respect by adhering to their advice.
A parent engaged in a child custody case is directly affected by the outcome. Therefore, the parent is under no obligation to sit quietly and follow or even listen to unsolicited advice from others. Short of violently beating someone to the ground there is no wrong way to tell someone that their comments are unwelcomed.
Parents may get told what their state of being or mannerisms should be during the process. The child custody litigation process not only involves the obvious legal strategizing but it also include an element of grieving for the loss of the relationships that existed prior to the breakdown. There is no correct way to grieve for this loss and those who insist on imposing such a standard should rightfully be rebuffed.
Tact can be discarded wholly in these situations if the circumstances lead to it. True feelings should be reflected when communicating to ancillary figures to the parents and children going through the custody battle. It may help the person receiving the message to comprehend the full impact of what the parent is experiencing. If a parent, in response to the advice of the most well-intentioned person, experiences the thought of “I just to tell him/her to shut the &%$# up” then it should be done.
At the opposite end there will be times when conforming to societal norms will contribute toward achieving a parent’s desired outcome. These are more applicable to concrete actions or behaviours related to the child. As an example use the inveterate practices such as corporal punishment of children. While once considered a standard child rearing practice this is a vestige of a past dominated by visceral reactions of intellectually deficient or primal parents. Such outmoded parenting techniques are viewed with disfavour by the courts, show a lack of respect for the sentience of the child, and may be criminal.
Reliance upon superstition and mysticism
False hopes and attributions to outside agency can lead to complacency and failure to take necessary proactive steps for advancing the well-being of children and the parent-parent and parent-child relationships. Rationalizations for adherence to superstition and mysticism are likewise ineffective and producing positive changes.
Just like the phrase I am from the government and I am here to help you elicits a chuckle from businesspeople likewise the phrase It’s on the Internet so it must be true has the same effect on typical users. Even so, credulous minds are now more common as a result of fast paced lifestyles and information overload which reduce opportunities to apply critical thinking skills. It days past deceptions were formally presented with an air of authority which accompanied by a dearth of information resources limited challenges and allowed them to be more easily implanted.
Thus a great many people have conceptions that there are greater forces than themselves controlling the outcomes of their lives. These provincial worldviews naturally obstruct cognitive processes that facilitate healthier interpersonal relationships. Adherence to ancient orthodoxy in our modern society creates friction resulting from conforming -- or attempting -- to an outmoded lifestyle and beliefs structure than that which facilitates ease of functioning in our vastly different current social climate.
The simple Truth -- what is self evident -- reveals that prayer, ritual, and faith have no impact upon child custody outcomes. These are merely vestiges of ancient orders which during times of great ignorance sought to comfort adherents and provide “answers” for the unknown.
Parents who care about the best interest of their children will not rely upon the perception of outside agency to guide their actions or succumb to a fateful outcome but will instead accept personal responsibility. The outcomes of child custody actions and the state of the parent-parent and parent-child relationships is dependent upon the actions of people, most particularly the people who are a part of those relationships.
Poised for combat
I have proposed and some jurisdictions have adopted that child custody cases be captioned as in the matter of and the parents be referenced as “mother” and “father” rather than petitioner and respondent. This subtle distinction can be a tacit reminder that the matter is about providing for the child and not a competition or battle between parents. Regardless, there are parents who hold an attitude that they must “win” the custody battle. I refer to these parents as holding an “I want to make my attorney rich” or “My child is a possession” attitude. Parents who enter the courtroom with a contumacious attitude will not be able to conceal that feeling regardless of otherwise compliant or decorous behaviour. Those who maintain equanimity during interactions with the other parent will experience better outcomes.
The outcome to which I refer is not the decision of the court. That is merely a single result along the continuum of actions affecting the parent-child relationship. Rather, the outcome is the parent-child relationship. By focusing on that long-term objective the custody “battle” becomes less significant and can be seen as a process to get through rather than a result establishing a demarcation between parents.
Parents poised for battle carry themselves in that manner and reflect that attitude which is likely to be naturally reciprocated. They view encounters with the other parent as hostile -- as an incursion into the battlefield. Instead they should approach the other parent at exchanges of the child or other brief encounters with phatic expressions and a smile. Parents who are reticent to do so as a gesture of goodwill toward a perceived loathsome person could instead do so for the mere amusement of having him or her wonder just what motivated such pleasantries.
A remissible gesture may never be forthcoming. Waiting for such may be just what his or her previous partner is doing. Thus, doing so creates an impasse. A positive approach is to be proactive and offer the opening salvo. If a parent objectively can identify himself or herself as causing the split, or who filed for divorce, then offering the gesture is his or her obligation. Parents need not express nor expect remorse as rarely do I find any parent engaged in a custody battle thinking that he or she has committed an offense necessitating a plea of forgiveness. But the simple humble expression accentuating a positive of the other parent may sooth the umbrage which leads to protracted conflict.
I suggest that parents requite the pleasures and forgive the hurts letting those instead slip into the vast abyss of pangs that pepper the past relationship. Each day is an opportunity for a new relationship. Every interaction begins the relationship of that day forward. Liken this to painting a wall. The existing layers are still there but it is the new layer that is seen and built upon as the decor is matched to the current scheme. A concomitant result of reduced hostility will be an easing of mental stress. You may have or know of someone who has experienced the relief of forgiving someone.
Child first perspective
A search for the parent who will stand up and proudly proclaim I am doing this for me, my child comes second may prove to be futile. But it is the reality of many parental actions. Parents may not realize that their actions, especially those which are customary or typical, are placing their children in a subordinate role. The actuality is that when a parent brings a child into the world that parent voluntarily accepts a subordinate role to the child.
When engaged in child custody litigation parents may experience a distrait level of consciousness to this obligation. It becomes easy for them while embrangled in the process to lose focus of the well-being of the child.
Having a child first perspective will initially conflict with the competitive stance established through the attempt to win the legal proceeding. It may require abandoning a strategic advantage that would envelop the child in the conflict. But by keeping in mind that it is the parent-child relationship outcome which is paramount to the result of the proceeding this becomes a viable strategy.
The filial temper of a child is greatly influenced by prioritization. Children realize this although they may not be cognizant of it. Each day during the childhood years of my son I strove to be a better parent than I had been the previous day and prepared to be a better parent tomorrow than I would be during the current day. I suppose I still do so but in a less active capacity.
I recently spoke with my son during his break from college and somehow the subject of parenting arose. More particularly we got to discussing being attentive to his needs and desires as a child. I asked if he felt that I had made him the priority in my life. He responded affirmatively. Coming from someone who has told me that I am a jerk, to shut up and other ego crushing asseverations I took the response as completely honest. As to if he felt the same about his mother, I didn’t broach that. However, his actions and past comments have provided ample insight. I do encourage ways for him to have a healthy relationship with her.
While I know I was wronged by his mother that is a nugatory consideration when it comes to making his well-being the priority.
Keeping score
That brings me to the final segment. Competing with the other parent and tallying the beneficent and detrimental acts committed by each.
First, I encourage parents and their ancillary network of supporters to rescind the honour code or other cultural expectations that would tempt any to calculate the deeds of a parent comparatively to anyone else, most notably the other parent of the child.
The invidious actions of the other parent, whether currently expressed or of days gone by, shall not be the basis by which a parent molds his or her current behaviour. That is to say a parent should not react. If genuine efforts prove futile, attempts to wheedle the other parent into satisfying requests may prove successful even at the cost of being disingenuous.
Through the practice of making these behaviours routine the goal is to inculcate a change in cognition of the practicing parent about the other parent. This is then reflected to everyone that may impact the parent-child relationship.
Members of a parent’s support network should help the parent attune his or her behaviours and actions to the course of the desired outcome. It is by integrating each of these elements that the gestalt of a parent is transformed in such a manner as to facilitate a more harmonious relationship with the other parent which brings into accord what both likely desire for the child -- the child’s healthy adjustment to the new parenting roles, happiness, and well-being.
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.
As a child custody policy advisor I have written and had child custody related legislation passed into law. My counseling of lawyers and appearances as an expert witness have helped them achieve more favorable results for their clients including winning appeals, gaining parenting time, reducing conflict, and mediating agreements. Additionally I made important contributions to the amended Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines that went into effect March 2013 and am currently formulating recommendations for the Indiana Child Support Guidelines which are to be amended this year. For parents I offer child custody based life coaching to help them maintain control of their lives and increase their fitness as parents so they can truly serve the best interest of their children.
