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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT