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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT