ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 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

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT