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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT