ILNews

Indiana AFCC chapter has first meeting this month

Dave Stafford
August 15, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, a national organization that brings a holistic approach to family law, has authorized the creation of an Indiana chapter.

“This group is the only group I’ve come across that truly attracts and embraces multiple disciplines,” said Rebecca Billick, a family law practitioner and mediator at Andrews Harrell Mann Carmin & Parker P.C. in Bloomington.

Billick, who heads up organizing the chapter, said AFCC welcomes judges, attorneys, mental health professionals, mediators, guardians ad litem and others in the family law arena to discuss how to make the system work best for children and their families.

gatheringsThere are about 140 members of the national organization in Indiana. “We get the support of the national branch in attracting folks for conferences and research and different kinds of networking opportunities,” Billick said. “We hope to have at least one annual conference where we’ll have speakers from all disciplines.”

Along with Billick, the coordinating committee for the Indiana chapter consists of vice chair Christopher Barrows, attorney and

registered domestic relations mediator at Avery & Cheerva LLP; Allen Superior Magistrate Judge Craig Bobay of Fort Wayne; psychologist Frank Choate of Rochester; Steuben Superior Judge William Fee of Angola; psychologist Susan Dwyer of Fort Wayne; Fishers attorney and registered domestic relations mediator Mary Wisehart Phillips of Phillips Attorneys Inc.; and attorney and registered domestic relations mediator John Shanks of Shanks Law Offices & Conflict Resolution Center in Anderson.

The first business meeting for the chapter will take place Aug. 24 at Riley Children’s Hospital at Indiana University Health in conjunction with a day conference presented by the Indiana Association for Infant and Toddler Mental Health.

Dr. Angela Tomlin, a clinical psychologist at Riley, is organizing the preceding conference, “Young Children and the Courts: Process, Proceedings and Players,” with support from Head Start.

She said the conferences were scheduled together with the hope the professionals from various disciplines who work on matters of family law might have an opportunity to learn about the work of others in the field.

“I think great people are trying to consider this and we have a lot of challenges,” Tomlin said. “The legal side and the mental health side are trying to understand each other: Here are the gaps, and here is where we’re trying to improve things.”•

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT