ILNews

Court reverses suspension of mother's parenting time

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the modification of a mother’s parenting time to end any visitation with her autistic son because the father didn’t present evidence justifying terminating the parenting time. The judges also encouraged the mother to attend parenting classes or therapy to learn how to better deal with her son’s special needs.

Mother P.S. and father W.C. had one son together, W.C., who has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. In May 2010, the mother’s parenting time was modified to Sundays from noon to 1 p.m. at a local McDonald’s, with the father supervising, and telephone calls on Wednesdays between 3 and 5 p.m. Mother was also ordered to treat their son appropriately for his age as a 10-year-old and refrain from talking about adult topics with him.

The father documented the visits and phone calls in a three-page journal, noting P.S. brought calendars with court dates on them, asked her son to tell her “I love you” so she could record it, and brought up his old school and behavior. She also fed him, brought him toys and books appropriate for preschoolers, and spoke baby talk to him on the phone.

After one of the visits, the son became upset and soiled himself that day. The son also reverted back to baby talk and became obsessed with baby things instead of items appropriate for a 10-year-old.

At a hearing, the mother explained that she brought the calendars because she knew her son liked them and didn’t think he’d know what the court dates meant; that she was just reminiscing when she brought up his old school and behavior to show how much he has grown; and that she had possibly referred to him as “baby,” but is trying to treat him like a pre-teen.

The trial court suspended her parenting rights and any other contact with her son and granted a protective order against her until July 2020, when W.C. would be 20.

In Paternity of W.C.; P.S. v. W.C., No. 82A04-1008-JP-496, the judges found father W.C. did not prove the need for such a restriction on P.S.’s parenting time. The evidence he presented was his journal; no guardian ad litem, therapist, or any other professional or objective witness testified. Based on the journal, the court found the mother’s actions endangered her son’s physical health and mental well-being by causing W.C. to be upset and anxious and impaired his emotional development.

While mother needs to improve her parenting skills, the evidence shows she loves her son and wants to be a part of his life and even brings him gifts, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

“This case throws into sharp relief the challenge of protecting a child’s emotional development and physical health and well-being while also recognizing a parent’s ‘precious privilege’ of exercising parenting time with that child. We do not minimize the behavioral issues W.C. has exhibited following Mother’s parenting time. However, Father simply did not present evidence justifying termination of what little parenting time Mother had left,” she wrote.

The appellate court reinstated the previous parenting time and asked the trial court to vacate the 10-year protective order. On remand, the judges encouraged the trial court to consider ordering the mother to attend parenting classes so she can learn how to appropriately deal with W.C.’s special needs. They also suggested the parenting time be supervised by a third party.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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 fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT