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
Representative David Frizzell has introduced House Bill 1183 relating to assigning the custodial decisions of minor children. Frizzell has long shown an interest in child well-being matters. The bill has been assigned to the committee on Family, Children and Human Affairs.
This bill amends the Guardianship and Protected Persons section of the Indiana Code at 29-3-9-1. Currently, under certain conditions this section allows for legal decisions to be delegated by a parent of a minor or a guardian (other than a temporary guardian) of a protected person to another person by a properly executed power of attorney. The power of attorney may be executed under two conditions; 1] for any period during which the care and custody of the minor or protected person is entrusted to an institution furnishing care, custody, education, or training. or, 2] for a period not exceeding twelve months. The authority granted to the other person may include any powers regarding health care, support, custody, or property of the minor or protected person.
This bill adds a section giving protections to all parties against government intrusion or regulation. It provides that a “delegation of powers executed under this subsection does not, as a result of the execution of the power of attorney, subject any of the parties to any laws, rules, or regulations concerning the licensing or regulation of foster family homes, child placing agencies, or child caring institutions”. It further restricts reclassifying the child in that any child who is the subject of a power of attorney is not considered to be placed in foster care. It precludes the parties from foster care regulation in that the parties to a power of attorney, including a child, a protected person, a parent or guardian of a child or protected person, or an attorney-in-fact, are not, as a result of the execution of the power of attorney, subject to any foster care requirements or foster care licensing regulations.
However, a foster family home may not provide overnight care and supervision to a child who is the subject of a power of attorney concurrent to providing care to a child placed in the foster home by the Department of Child Services or under a juvenile court order under a foster family home license. The parties may request that the department grant an exception to this rule.
The final amendment to this section allows for persons conscripted to a deployment for government service to execute a power of attorney for longer than 12 months but that such power shall expire 30 days after the deployed person returns.
This bill creates a new section at Indiana Code 31-33-8-15. This section would allow for the Department of Child Services when engaged in the investigation of alleged abuse or neglect to provide services without an implication of abuse or neglect. “If DCS classifies an assessment as unsubstantiated, 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 the child who is the subject of the assessment.”
If DCS provides information to a parent or guardian of the child then that cannot be used as a basis to initiate an investigation or substantiate a finding of child abuse or neglect. If DCS substantiates the abuse or neglect it may refer the parent or guardian to a community service program that provides respite care, voluntary guardianship, or other support services for families in crisis as appropriate to meet the needs of the family.
Finally the bill provides that the providing of information by DCS does not create any obligation on its part nor can it be held liable for any action arising out of having furnished the information.
The provisions of this bill would not supercede the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines or existing child custody orders. It should also aid in encouraging some families to avail themselves of services without fear that DCS will use their participation to implicate them in an abuse or neglect finding. With that I see no reason to oppose this bill.
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.
Representative Olthoff has introduced House Bill 1223 relating to the death of a child who is the subject of a child custody order. The bill has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
This is a rather simple bill which addresses an issue that I have, thankfully, yet to encounter in a child custody case. It provides that if a minor child who is the subject of custody order, the parent who was awarded sole legal custody of the minor child or primary physical custody, if the parents were awarded joint legal custody of the minor child, is entitled to make the decisions regarding disposal of the body.
If parents disagree on this issue then the matter needs to be addressed in settlement negotiations or before the court and entered into a court order. As disposal of a body is time sensitive challenging the decision of the custodial parent after the death of the child would not be practical and likely ineffective. It is a matter that should be considered in all cases though because children of parents who are not co-habitating have a significantly elevated risk of death.
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.
Senator Ed Charbonneau has introduced Senate Bill 82 relating to parental rights in alleged rape cases. The bill has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. It is scheduled for hearing on 20 January 2016 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 130. The companion bill in the House is HB1064.
This bill is a modified version of the one that has been previously introduced. In discussions I had with legislators in 2012 regarding the version introduced that year I expressed concern about the burden of proof and that men could suddenly find themselves facing a rape allegation because they filed a paternity action.
This bill provides that a woman who alleges that she conceived a child through an act of rape may file a petition with the probate or juvenile court to terminate the parental rights of the alleged father. This bill provides that the act of rape is prima facie evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship between the alleged perpetrator and the child is in the best interests of the child. In simple terms this is saying that at first glance it is assumed that it is not healthy for a child to have a relationship with his or her parent who is a rapist.
The bill further provides that the “court shall terminate the parent-child relationship if the court finds:
(1) by clear and convincing evidence that the allegations in a petition described in section 4(2)(A) and 4(2)(B) of this chapter are true; and
(2) that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of the child.”
When it was reintroduced in 2013 I wrote this about the clear and convincing standard; The clear and convincing standard is what is called the mid-level burden-of-proof. In criminal trials the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is generally attributed to certainty of about 95% or greater. In civil actions the standard is by a preponderance of the evidence. That means 51% or more of the evidence is in favour of the verdict. Clear and convincing is used in civil actions where there may be a substantial loss of liberty involved such as in this scenario or when CPS initiates a custodial action. Clear and convincing requires much more than a preponderance - >50% -- but not beyond a reasonable doubt -- >95%. It is generally attributed to a level of certainty of about 75%.
I am not in opposition to the intent of this bill. Clearly a woman who went through the trauma of a rape should not have to regularly face the unincarcerated perpetrator during parenting time exchanges or through other interactions. This is viewing the bill through the subjective lens of the victim.
In examining legislation I provide an objective analysis, looking both at support for the bill but also potential hazards or why it should be opposed. In 2013 I further wrote; I am initially disturbed by this legislation in that as a specialist in high conflict child custody cases I immediately see the potential for abuse. Just think of the false allegations that are often made in petitions for protective orders that are used as part of a child custody litigation strategy. I was falsely accused of rape in a protective order petition once. The police actually came and testified against my stalker/accuser. One only need look to The Innocence Project to see the list of “rapists” who were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt but later release upon a showing that they could not have been the perpetrator. Imagine being sent to prison for the duration of the childhood of your son or daughter and losing all custody rights in the process all based upon a false allegation.
I suggested then that three provisions be added to bill. 1] Require the petitioner to disclosure any other current or past child custody proceedings between her and the accused parent, 2] that petition to terminate cannot be used as an independent action if another custody action is currently pending between the parties, and 3] that if the alleged victim of rape did not make a prior report to law enforcement or at a minimum have a rape kit test performed then there is a presumption that there was no rape and that the petitioner must first establish that a rape occurred before the termination of parental rights proceeding may move forward.
The current version of this bill has had a section added which attempts to concisely address these concerns. Sec. 4. (a) A parent who:
(1) is the victim of an act of rape; and
(2) is at least eighteen (18) years of age at the time the act ofrape occurred;
may not file a petition for termination of the parent-child relationship under this chapter more than one hundred eighty(180) days after the birth of the child.
(b) A parent who:
(1) is the victim of an act of rape; and
(2) is less than eighteen (18) years of age at the time the act of rape occurred;
may not file a petition for termination of the parent-child relationship under this chapter more than two (2) years after becoming eighteen (18) years of age.
Adding this section is a substantial protective step by bringing the termination process in closer proximity to the time of the alleged rape. This would eliminate the rape allegation from being used as a trial strategy in a significant portion of custody battles but it could still affect a great portion of paternity cases. I would still like to see language added that requires a court that currently has jurisdiction over custody of the child to have the case transferred and joined to the existing case.
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.
Senator Michael Crider has authored Senate Bill SB 198 relating to Domestic Violence. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Corrections and Criminal Law. It is scheduled for hearing on 12 January 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 130.
While the bill is 48 pages most are original texts that contain no changes or the inclusion of a code citation. That is simply conforming various portions of the existing criminal code related to battery and Domestic Battery by locating all Domestic Battery offenses within that section and relating or including Domestic Battery with other battery offenses throughout the numerous sections. The substantive portion of the bill comes in the amendments to the Domestic Battery statute.
The bill simplifies the relationship definition for the domestication element of Domestic Battery. Removed is that the persons involved in the battery are or were married or living as married, or have a child in common. This is replaced by the simple parameter of “family or household member”.
A series of aggravating factors are detailed for the purpose of establishing the various offense levels consistent with simple battery offense levels. This bill also adds battery by bodily waste to the Domestic Battery section.
One thing that I did not see in the bill is a definition of “family member”. In providing the inclusion of “household or family member” as a required relationship element for qualifying as Domestic Battery I believe the intent to be people that are domesticated together - residing together as a traditional family such as parents and children and possibly other close relations such as grandparents, adult siblings or cousins.
The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines define “household family member” as an “adult person residing in the household, who is related to the child by blood, marriage or adoption.” I suggest that for the purpose of the Domestic Battery statute that “household or family member” be defined as “a person who primarily resides in the household, who is related to the the other person by blood, marriage, living as married, or adoption.” This would include multiple generations of family members, residing extended family, and also any family member who has temporarily relocated from the household to a shelter or elsewhere. I have sent this suggestion to Senator Crider.
This is logical legislation because it would disqualify absurd applications of the Domestic Violence enhancement to situations such as two people who bump cars in a parking lot and get into a fight who just happened to have been married 20 years earlier but haven’t seen each other in 15 years.
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.
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.
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.
