ILNews

Judicial Conference moves parenting time guidelines forward, minus parenting coordination

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The board of directors of the Indiana Judicial Conference approved proposed changes to the state’s parenting time guidelines Sept. 14 and sent them to the Supreme Court for review. However, the guidelines were sent on without any suggestions on parenting coordination.

Johnson Circuit Judge Mark Loyd, who chairs the conference’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee, said the decision to remove parenting coordination from the guidelines came after comments made by the ADR section of the Indiana State Bar Association and the Supreme Court Rules Committee.

“Based upon those substantial and significant groups of comments, it became obvious that there needed to be some alteration of some portion,” he said.

The comments ranged from whether the parenting coordination should remain in the parenting time guidelines or be free-standing rules to whether recommendations from parenting coordinators should become binding before court review or should traditional due process kick in, he said.

Loyd and Steuben Superior Judge William Fee, who chairs the conference’s Domestic Relations Committee, agreed that the guidelines should move forward to the Supreme Court for review without the parenting coordination guidelines. Loyd said the PC guidelines will take more time to address and they didn’t want to hold up the rest of the revisions – including revisions made to address parallel parenting.

The conference's ADR committee is meeting with the ADR committee of the state bar next month to discuss possible rule changes and resolutions involving parenting coordination. Parenting coordination is not currently addressed in the guidelines or Supreme Court rules in effect.

Jeffrey Bercovitz, director of juvenile and family law at the Indiana Judicial Center, said the rest of the guidelines submitted to the Supreme Court did not significantly change and were "cleaned up." He said they are very similar to the rules posted on the court’s website in March for public comment, except there is now only one appendix.

The Domestic Relations and ADR committees of the Judicial Conference worked on these guidelines together for about two years, he said. This is the first time the guidelines have been reviewed since their inception in 2001.

There’s no indication when the Supreme Court will rule on the guidelines.


 

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. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  3. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

  4. A great idea! There is absolutely no need to incarcerate HRC's so-called "super predators" now that they can be adequately supervised on the streets by the BLM czars.

  5. One of the only qualms I have with this article is in the first paragraph, that heroin use is especially dangerous because it is highly addictive. All opioids are highly addictive. It is why, after becoming addicted to pain medications prescribed by their doctors for various reasons, people resort to heroin. There is a much deeper issue at play, and no drug use should be taken lightly in this category.

ADVERTISEMENT