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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT