Committees propose new rules for parenting coordination

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Domestic Relations Committee and Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee of the Judicial Conference of Indiana have developed proposed parenting coordination rules and commentary. Parenting coordinators are used to help resolve disputes between parents regarding children. Currently, there are no existing Indiana Supreme Court rules covering the area.

The use of parenting coordinators has increased over the years. Typically, judges would suggest parenting coordinators – PCs – to families who are having difficulties communicating or resolving differences when it comes to their children. Using a parenting coordinator to work out who takes the kids to sports practices, or when to drop off children for visitation helps keep these disputes out of the court system and can save money as compared to using the courts to work out every issue.  

Johnson Circuit Judge K. Mark Loyd noticed a swing about two years ago from judicial ordering of PCs to requests from the parties to use a parenting coordinator. Judge Loyd is chair of the ADR committee that is jointly proposing the new rules for PCs. His committee was exploring this issue at the same time the Domestic Relations committee was and the two formed a subcommittee to explore creating these rules. The process took a couple of years and now the rules are available for public comment until May 26.

“There are certainly rules in there that are drawn upon national experiences. There are rules proposed and provisions that are unique to Indiana and our perspectives,” Judge Loyd said.

The proposed rules define what a parenting coordinator is, qualifications, the role of the PC, discipline, and other issues.

Comments should be sent to Jeffrey Bercovitz, Juvenile and Family Law, Indiana Judicial Center, c/o Domestic Relations and Alternative Dispute Resolution Committees, 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 900, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3456.


  • PC Involvement Charges
    The involvement of a good PC is an aid in resolving conflict, which is best for the children. However, the PC business is a relatively new one, and the charges are high. What if one party has the finances to overuse the PC forum, and the other does not? A ridiculous situation ensues, in which might is right, one party raises the issues and both have to pay the PC. This places the party with less financial reserves under financial pressure, and is a means to bully to get one's way.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.