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. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT