ILNews

Order prohibiting boyfriend from spending time with children too broad

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The longtime boyfriend of a mother of triplets should be allowed to continue his relationship with her children as long as it does not undermine or damage the relationship with their father, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Thursday. As such, the judges reversed the order preventing the boyfriend from spending time with the children alone.

Charity and Cory Lindquist divorced when their triplets were around 3 years old. Charity Lindquist began a relationship with Robert Criswell and she and the children lived with Criswell for nearly seven years before moving out when the children were 9. Charity Lindquist and Criswell continue to date.

After she moved out, Charity Lindquist continued to allow Criswell to spend time with the children and take them on family vacations without her.

At a court hearing regarding parenting time, Cory Lindquist said he wanted to spend as much time with his children as he can, but his ex-wife refused him chances to do so. He also believed the relationship between the triplets and Criswell is undermining his relationship with the children.

The trial court found Charity Lindquist in contempt for refusing parenting time with her ex during Christmas 2012 and then ordered that Criswell is not allowed to spend any time one-on-one with the children unless Charity Lindquist is present because Criswell’s relationship has interfered with the children’s relationship with their father.

Charity Lindquist appealed in Charity Lindquist v. Cory Lindquist, 23A04-1306-DR-277, in which the appellate court reversed the portion of the order preventing Criswell from spending alone time with the children, citing Section I(C)(3) of the Parenting Time Guidelines. Criswell has developed a meaningful relationship with the children, so he should be able to continue to see them as long as it is in the children’s best interests. There are no allegations of abuse or neglect. But, this relationship should not undermine or damage the triplet’s relationship with their father, Judge John Baker pointed out.

Cory Lindquist should first be given the opportunity to exercise additional parenting time before Criswell is allowed to spend unsupervised time with the children.

The judges affirmed the portion of the order finding Charity Lindquist in contempt for denying parenting time last Christmas. They remanded with instructions that the trial court craft an order permitting the children to maintain their relationship with Criswell and to spend unsupervised time with him because it is within the children’s best interest to do so, and so long as that relationship does not interfere with or impede Cory Lindquist’s opportunity to exercise his parenting time in accordance with 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

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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT