ILNews

Concerns rise as revised parenting time guidelines near completion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

A first-ever review of Indiana’s Parenting Time Guidelines is nearing completion, but what the final proposal will look like isn’t known yet.

Among the proposed changes: Revisions to holidays that could affect weekend parenting time; new language dealing with online communication between parents and children and use of technology such as Skype; and revised rules regarding overnight visitation.

billick Billick

But perhaps the most significant changes pertain to proposed guidelines for parents in high-conflict situations: the guidelines under consideration would include provisions governing the use of parenting coordinators and “parallel parenting.”

Christopher Barrows, an attorney at Avery & Cheerva LLP in Indianapolis, is a parenting coordinator who said the rumor mill is churning about what language, if any, will be adopted regarding parenting coordinators. Court-appointed PCs act as buffers between parents to mediate and attempt to resolve differences regarding parenting time and other issues, but the current guidelines have no language addressing their roles.

“Some of the concern I have about the parenting coordinator rules is that the rules don’t go far enough in giving authority to the PC,” he said. As written, the rules wouldn’t allow parenting coordinators to make binding recommendations without a judge’s intervention, he explained.

In current practice, Barrows said he tries not to make binding resolutions unless he feels he has to. And in those cases, both parents must agree to the recommendation. He said it’s a useful tool.

“If it’s objected to within seven days, it’s not binding and they can take it to court,” Barrows said. But, he added, it also raises the practical question for parents: “Is this a battle you actually want to fight?”

Two committees of the Indiana Judicial Center – domestic relations and alternative dispute resolution – have been working for months on revisions to the guidelines after a period of public input closed.

Johnson Superior Judge Mark Loyd, who chairs the ADR panel, said that group has concluded its work and its counterpart committee will do so this month. The recommendations will then go to the Indiana Judicial Center board of directors, then to the Indiana Supreme Court for final approval, likely by year’s end.

What’s in those recommendations probably won’t be public knowledge until the judicial center board acts on them and moves them to the Supreme Court, said Jeffrey Bercovitz, director of juvenile and family law at the Indiana Judicial Center.

“The parenting time guidelines have not been reviewed since they were promulgated, and they were sorely in need of a review,” he said of the rules that took effect in 2001.

Loyd hinted at some changes that have been made after periods of public comment this year. “The rules as currently drafted would have a minimum level of credentials” for parenting coordinators, for instance.

The guidelines presented for public review earlier this year included a host of revisions, not limited to the adoption of parenting coordinator and parallel parenting rules. Those proposed revisions included:

Holidays. A proposed change would keep weekends following holidays on the original parenting schedule. In situations where parenting time alternates by weekend, the custodial parent could have children three weekends in a row. The proposed rules also clarified that each parent receives half of Christmas vacations and that if a child’s birthday falls on a holiday, the holiday establishes parenting time.

Overnights. The proposed guidelines would include a provision that overnight visitation shall be allowed “unless it can be demonstrated that the non-custodial parent has not had regular care responsibilities for the child.”

Electronic communication. A proposed guideline has been added encouraging communication between parents and children via phone, email and online services such as Skype. Such communication strengthens bonds between parents and children, according to the proposal.

Unacceptable reasons. A proposal lists reasons deemed unacceptable to refuse to provide parenting time. These include, among others, reasons such as a child refuses to go, the child isn’t home, the weather is bad, or the noncustodial parent is behind in support.

Rebecca Billick, a Bloomington attorney and domestic relations mediator, said she’s concerned the proposal for overnight parenting could harm the attachment bond that children under 3 form with their primary parent.

She said a growing body of research suggests that for very young children, frequent changes in where they’re sleeping can lead to difficulty understanding the world around them.

Among high-conflict parents, the proposed guidelines would include rules for parallel parenting, in which communication between parents is limited and usually in writing. Its uses typically would be reserved for situations where parenting counselors or family therapists are involved or when parenting time is being phased out.

But where parents can cooperate, the parenting time guidelines for the first time would place an onus on parents. A proposed section urges parents to make their own arrangements to establish parenting time where possible, subject to court approval.

“Parents should attempt to create their own parenting plan which is in the best interests of the child,” according to the last public draft proposed guidelines.

“The more we can resolve outside the courtroom, the quicker we can bring in the parties who can’t resolve their differences,’” Loyd said.•

Click here to read about the creation of the Indiana chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • unjust treatment
    In addition to previous remarks in message from Terry Butcher: I'm 70 yrs old and she is 40 I have three grown children and three grown grand children and one great grand daughter,I still live where my son was born and I raised him the first four years of his life. She has forced me to see a neuropsychologist which I passed the testing just fine. Nothing I do is ever going to satisfy her, she thinks she can do no wrong and I'm not fit to have our son, but I was good enough to care for him while we were married and she was at work and going to concerts with her girlfriends and such. We never argue, we get along with each other in most areas. I just want my rights as a noncustodial parent as per parenting guidelines. Any suggestions you might offer would be appreciated. Thank you, Terry Butcher
  • just fair treatment
    In May of 2010, I went on a four day motorcycle trip, upon my return, my wife had left with our son who at that time was less than 4 years old. She refused to let me see him for almost 6 months and then it was with supervision because of things she concocted with some of her friends. After nearly two years, the divorce was final and she got full custody of our son, he is now 6 years old. She is referring to the guidelines that may go into effect next year and is applying them now.

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT