ILNews

Family courts for pro se parents

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


While family courts have been around in Indiana for the last decade, the counties that have them continue to make changes to improve access to justice to all litigants who are in the system.

A few of the upgrades since the programs first began in 2000 include cases being bundled together, education and information about non-legal services, better access to necessary documents, and starting in June 2009 in Marion County, a new in-house mediation program for low-income parties that is seeking volunteer mediators who will get paid for their time.

"When people get divorced, they think it'll be like a trip to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles," said Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly, the supervising judge of the Marion County Family Court Project. "They think they just need to come in, sign a few documents, and they're divorced."

Because of this misconception, she said the court staff would get frustrated because there wasn't much they could do.

This wasn't just the case in Marion County, said Loretta Oleksy, Family Court Project manager at the Division of State Court Administration. The program includes 23 of Indiana's 92 counties.

Some of the smaller counties might not need to have a family court program, she added, considering those counties might have only one court and one judge.

However, counties with large populations like Marion, Lake, St. Joseph, Porter, Vanderburgh, and Allen have litigants with multiple cases in multiple courts all happening at the same time.

With the bundling option available in many counties that have family court projects, if someone has a divorce case happening at the same time as a Child in Need of Services case, a paternity case, or even a criminal case, those cases can be grouped together so the same judge knows about all of them.

This can be helpful because sometimes there's an issue in a divorce about parenting time, said Marya Jones, the family court coordinator for Marion Superior Court. For example, if the father is given parenting time that would require him to pick up the children, but he has a pending DUI and doesn't have a license, or if there's a protective order, it would be helpful to the judge handling the divorce to know the father can't pick up the children and to arrange the custody agreement and parenting time accordingly.

Another example Judge Moberly gave was when a mother would have drug charges and a pending divorce at the same time, and the drug charges could be related to a CHINS case. With the CHINS case in the juvenile court and the divorce case in a different court in front of a different judge, the judge handling the CHINS case would benefit from knowing about the divorce case and vice versa.

As in the example of the mother with a history of drug abuse, the family court can help in other ways, she said. For instance, through Diane Griner of the service referral area of the Marion County Family Court Project, families can access services such as counselors, rehabilitation programs, job training, mental health services, or other services.

Griner works with the parents to determine if their insurance will cover any health services, and if not, she'll help them learn who can take them at a reduced rate. She then makes the initial appointment and follows up. This information is shared with the court official overseeing the case.

Indianapolis-based family law attorney Patricia McKinnon, who's been following the program, said, "From my point of view, conflicts between the parents often relate to other problems that remain unsolved in a parent's life, such as alcoholism, mental illness, etc. By treating the parent, the children can benefit from less conflict between the parents, and by a parent getting the help he or she needs with the assistance of the court staff."

Barbara Davis, who oversees the project's access program, helps parents reach an agreement that the parents are willing to live with on at least a temporary basis. The parties can meet with Davis as other issues come up.

The resource center, where parents can contact the access center and get information about services, is something Oleksy was particularly impressed with.

"It's a one-stop shop for services, referrals, and other needs," she said. "Familylaw issues cause emotional distress. To have someone who is separated from the emotional aspects of a case can be very helpful to litigants."

The center includes computers for litigants' use to download, complete, and print forms. They can also access the Supreme Court's pro se video through the center, as well as a pro se video Marion County has available. Litigants also can check out DVDs of these videos to watch at home if they can't watch at the center.

The newest program through the Marion Court Family Law Project, which is unique to Marion County, is a modest means in-house mediation program that started June 1, 2009.

By agreeing to participate they can be paid $100 per hour: litigants pay on a sliding scale and the court pays the rest for a maximum of three hours, Jones said.

Like any mediation, Jones said the litigants have a chance to have a say in what they agree to, while a judge would decide for them if they're case went to court.

"The greatest aspect of this mediation is that parents realize they can communicate and talk to each other without animosity," Jones said. "This way they can focus on what's best for their children."

Having the mediation in the courthouse is also beneficial to parties, Jones added, because "for better or worse, they already know where the city-county building is."

Another benefit, Jones said, is "we can set up child support right away by going to the office next door."

While the parties don't need attorneys to represent them at mediations, if one party does have an attorney, that attorney can look over the agreement.

Right now, the program has up to 18 regular mediators, but they're always looking for more.

Judge Moberly and Jones encouraged certified mediators looking to get experience to consider signing up for the program. To get involved, contact Jones at (317) 327-3705 or mejones@indy.gov.

To better serve litigants, the court recently received a grant for a national expert to look at what the court does and determine best practices for Marion County, which could also be applied to other counties' family court projects.

People involved in the older programs have helped the newer programs, Oleksy said, which has been helpful to all the programs.

"The programs are so varied," she added. "Every county has different challenges and resources. Populations vary in size, in terms of issues of urban and rural areas, or even different pockets of ethnicity."

On the statewide level, she added, there will soon be a client satisfaction survey offered to litigants, and two new programs will be announced in the coming weeks.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

  2. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  3. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  4. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  5. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

ADVERTISEMENT