ILNews

Proposed rules provide uniformity for parenting coordinators

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The use of parenting coordinators is increasing around the state. But depending on where you are in Indiana, the authority of the parenting coordinator – PC – may differ. In an effort to create uniformity, rules are being proposed that would regulate the role and authority of PCs.

Parenting coordination is still relatively new in Indiana as compared to other states, such as Florida and Colorado. Parenting coordinators – attorneys or mental health professionals – assist “high conflict” parents when it comes to resolving issues involving their children. These are the parents who may, for example, disagree as to what kind of clothes their child wears. Instead of running to the courts every time there is a disagreement, the use of a PC can help resolve issues and teach the parents to work things out without court involvement.

Allen Circuit Magistrate Judge Craig J. Bobay said he’s seen orders that permit a PC to make binding recommendations but believes changes to existing orders should be judicial decisions. Robin B. Niehaus, an attorney and parenting coordinator in the Indianapolis area, said she is able to write a recommendation that would be considered binding unless one of the parties object.

This disparity around the state in PC authority exists because there are no rules regulating this area. Currently, judges can enter any order and give any authority they deem appropriate to the PC. Some of that is based on the different authority levels of PCs used in the state.

As defined in the Indiana Parenting Coordination Guide produced by Families Moving Forward Inc. in 2005, there are three levels of PCs used in Indiana. Level 1 PCs work with parents to resolve issues, but can only make recommendations; Level 2 PCs have the same role, but may be able to make binding recommendations if the court allows. Level 3 builds upon the first two levels, and also allows the PC to select and manage a treatment team to attend to the medical or mental-health needs of the parents or children.

Magistrate Bobay said the use of PC levels varies in Indiana, but he does know of some county bar associations that have adopted those levels for PCs.

“There was no consistency in the authority that parenting coordinators were being given,” said Lake Superior Magistrate Judge Nanette Raduenz. “We want orders throughout the state that are consistent regarding authority.”

The proposed rules don’t recognize levels. PCs will not be able to unilaterally modify an existing order or parenting plan, but they will be able to make recommendations and reports to the parties. If the parties agree, those recommendations can be adopted in practice or submitted to the court as a modification in the form of an agreed order, she said.

Magistrates Raduenz and Bobay, along with other judicial officers, were part of a subcommittee created by the Indiana Judicial Conference’s Domestic Relations and Alternative Dispute Resolution committees that wrote the proposed rules. Steuben Superior Judge Bill Fee, chair of the Domestic Relations Committee, said the committees know that PCs are being used and it’s a growing practice, and they felt it was time to take a look at the issue.

The 10 proposed rules include defining the qualifications of a PC, terms of service, confidentiality, and immunity. Currently, parenting coordinators don’t fall under any court rules and instead follow guidelines instituted by organizations like the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

parentingKate Burroughs, a family law attorney at Cross Woolsey & Glazier, said she has heard concerns about how recommendations by PCs under these rules wouldn’t be binding, as is the practice in some courts. Niehaus also cites proposed Rule 7 regarding the timeline once a PC has made a recommendation to the court as a concern. The rule could lengthen the recommendation process to as much as 50 days when factoring in objections and responses to objections filed with the court. Currently, she is able to make a recommendation and allow the parties seven days to object before it becomes binding.

Courts cannot order parties to utilize parenting coordination, and that would remain under the proposed rules. Niehaus said many parenting coordinators would have preferred to see a rule allowing the court to order people to participate in parenting coordination.

Magistrate Raduenz said the subcommittee discussed that possibility.

“It was determined that this should be something the parents agree to do voluntarily, mostly because of the cost factor,” she said. “Our experience with litigants is if it’s something they voluntarily agree to do, then they are more vested in the program and we’re hoping that this will then be a more productive process if they are on board from the beginning.”

Niehaus also has concerns with a proposed rule that may allow the PC to decide how much each parent has to pay for the PC. She wants the court to continue to make those decisions.

“The parenting coordinator is supposed to be unbiased, and if the parenting coordinator decides who pays how much, you can imagine the first thing (a party says is), ‘That’s not fair to me, you’re being biased,’” she said.

Laura Ellsworth, a PC and licensed counselor in Evansville, likes that the proposed rules spell out the qualifications for being a parenting coordinator, but she has concerns with the rule requiring the PC to be a registered Indiana domestic relations mediator. She said a lot of PCs don’t want to do domestic mediation. Judge Fee believes being a mediator would be an advantage for PCs, as they would have immunity as described under Indiana Rules for Alternative Dispute Resolution, Rule 1.5. But this gives Niehaus pause, as she wishes the rules would have spelled out a specific immunity section for parenting coordinators instead of lumping them under the immunity provision for mediators.

Under proposed Indiana Parenting Coordination Rule 10, those who want to serve as a registered PC would have to register with the Commission for Continuing Legal Education and pay an annual $50 fee. Currently, courts vary as to whether they have a master list of parenting coordinators. Judge Fee said that his court does not keep a list to provide to parents who may want to utilize a PC, but he knows who the PCs are in the area. In Lake County, those who are trained as PCs notify the courts and ask to be put on a list.

Overall, judges, attorneys, and parenting coordinators are pleased that rules were introduced.

“We think it’s time for some consistent regulation across the state,” said Judge Fee.•

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT