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

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. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT