ILNews

Indiana Family courts receive more than $200,000

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As the family court project of the Indiana Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration enters a new year, courts that participate in the program have learned they will continue to operate with about the same amount of funding they have had in recent years.

More than $200,000 was distributed among 13 programs serving 17 counties for 2011, according to Loretta Oleksy, Family Court Project Manager.

The other seven counties that participate in the program will also continue to operate at levels similar to recent years, but they did not submit requests for grants for 2011 because they have been able to secure other funding sources or had funds left over from last year. (See map of all counties with family court projects.)

Existing programs that received grants for 2011 include:

• Allen County’s project received $15,000 and served 141 new families in the first three quarters of 2010, the latest numbers available from the statewide Family Court Project. That program includes a facilitation program for paternity cases. The project also plans to expand its ADR program to include post-decree cases.

• A four-county program, which comprises Bartholomew, Brown, Jackson, and Lawrence counties, received $15,000 and served 325 new families in the first three quarters of 2010. This program also offers ADR and facilitates CHINS cases.

The Clark County Family Court Project received $25,000, and served 340 new families in the first three quarters of 2010. That project has proposed programming to include a Family Drug Treatment Court and CHINS mediation.

Other existing programs include a project in Henry County, which received $10,000 and served at least eight new families; a project in Lake County received $12,000, and served at least 43 new families; the LaPorte County project received $15,000, and served at least 312 new families; Marion County received $20,000 with the possibility of an additional $10,000 based on the recommendations of a report by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, and served at least 985 new families; Owen County’s project received $2,000 and served at least 21 new families; the St. Joseph County project received $15,000 and served at least 224 new families; Tippecanoe County’s project received $15,000 and served at least 194 new families; and Vanderburgh County’s family court project received $10,000 and served at least 66 new families. The number of new families served for each county includes those served during the first three quarters of 2010.

The three newest programs are in Madison and Parke counties, which both started in 2010. Madison County’s project received $20,000 and plans to assist up to 20 families based on who has the most need. Parke County’s project received $4,000, and is piloting the “family jacket” capability within Odyssey to coordinate a family’s multiple cases.

Jefferson County’s family court project is the latest, starting this year with a $40,000 grant. That county’s program includes a truancy prevention program.

According to a description of the program provided by Oleksy, the existing out-of-school suspension program, Court Assisted Resolution of School Suspensions, will implement a Saturday school component and provide “additional staff to supervise students who are removed from the CARSS classroom for bad behavior. In the past, these students have been sent home.”

All of the family court projects have tailored their grant requests, whether from the Division of State Court Administration, their individual counties, or other funding sources, to their specific needs. Each project has some flexibility in what it chooses to do or not do based on its needs, Oleksy said.

For instance, because Marion County’s project is among the largest in the state, that program uses a combination of one judge-one family and information sharing models. It also offers a Family Resource Center, service referral and coordination, alternative dispute resolution options for domestic relations cases, and assistance for self-represented litigants.

It is also helpful to pro se litigants in Marion County who don’t want to wait up to six months to be placed with a pro bono attorney through Heartland Pro Bono Council, which serves Indiana Pro Bono District 8, which includes Marion and surrounding counties.

family court“We hear from clients who don’t want to wait up to six months to be assigned to an attorney for family law cases,” said Heartland’s executive director, Laurie Boyd. She added that the majority of the cases she and other pro bono districts receive are family law cases, and that these projects offer another option.

The existence of the family law projects has also been helpful to the Volunteer Lawyer Program of Southwestern Indiana, in Pro Bono District 13, which includes Vanderburgh County. That program includes a Pro Se Assistance Clinic, which has a part-time social work intern who can help with case management, social service referrals, and coordination of mediation services, when applicable. That clinic also focuses on family law matters involving children, and gives special attention to families with multiple cases.

Scott Wylie, co-plan administrator for District 13, said he has noticed how the clinic has been helpful to all the legal aid providers in the area.

“Volunteer attorneys assist clients to complete a pro se form, then help pro se parties complete the forms and file them there … and that’s a solution. It allows us to focus attorney referrals to those most needing legal counsel. But just because someone is getting a divorce and doesn’t have children, it doesn’t mean they deserve counsel any less than anyone else,” he said.

He said the project has also helped because it offers access to mediation, counseling, and parenting coordination. That access has also cut the number of continuances, he said, because parties who go through that clinic have the right forms in the first place and have some guidance when they fill them out and file them.

“A pro se litigant without help can be a mess, but with basic guidance on demeanor in court and which forms to fill out, they can have a better chance of getting through the system. It’s still not as good as having an attorney,” he said, but it has helped.

Because the statewide project started in 2000, Oleksy said the judicial officers and staff have been reflecting on the last decade and recently completed a survey.

She said the results were very positive. Of the 65 people who received surveys, 34 began the surveys and 30 completed them. At least one person from each county involved in the project completed a survey.

Among the results, Oleksy and others in the Division of State Court Administration learned that the family court project has: improved responding courts’ ability to avoid conflicting and/or redundant orders for families with multiple cases (87 percent); avoided re-litigating the same issue in multiple courts (90 percent); made informed and coordinated decisions for families with multiple cases (87 percent); and avoided unnecessary delays in the judicial process (87 percent).

The survey also showed that the projects have: improved access to affordable alternative dispute resolution, assessment, and treatment for families (90 percent); improved families’ understanding of court orders and compliance with court-ordered services (83 percent); improved legal accuracy and sufficiency of self-represented litigant family law filings (83 percent); and decreased the amount of time judicial officers spend on non-judicial activities (i.e., calculating child support, reviewing pleadings, etc.) in cases involving self-represented litigants (83 percent).

“I forget sometimes how helpful these projects are,” Oleksy said, “but then I visit them and I see the work they do with individual families. They never cease to amaze me. The potential impact on pro se litigants is tremendous.”•

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT