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

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT