ILNews

Ringlespaugh: Custody issues for parents of special-needs children

January 13, 2016
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus
ringlespaugh-cassie-mug Ringlespaugh

Each year, millions of married couples with children file for divorce. While divorce can be trying on everyone involved, there are particular challenges for parents who have children with disabilities. Overall, most researchers have found that parents of children with disabilities are much likelier to divorce. A child with a disability has multiple needs that often require parents to learn about and deal with multiple third-party providers, including but not limited to schools, specialists, doctors and therapists. These parents are often faced with significant expenses that parents of typical children never have to consider. Therefore, when deciding child custody in a situation involving a child with special needs, it is important for the courts, parents and attorneys to consider how these situations differ from families that do not have children with disabilities. 

Child custody issues for parents of special-needs children require careful consideration. Indiana law bestows different legal rights to parents depending on whether they have physical or legal custody of their child.

In Indiana, the parent with legal custody has the authority to make decisions in three main categories: major medical decisions, educational decisions and decisions regarding the child’s religion. Parents can have joint legal custody, or one parent can have sole legal custody. Legal custody becomes even more significant when a child has a disability, as there are a multitude of medical and educational decisions that will need to be made by the child’s legal custodian, sometimes on short notice.

When determining legal custody for a child with special needs, it is important to consider the frequency in the selection of doctors, specialists or evaluators as well as the frequency of required medical care and expenses – and each parent’s availability to facilitate the same. Additional considerations for the legal custodian include the potential placement of the child into specialized programs or the need for special education services in the child’s school.

The legal custodian also has the authority to decide a child’s school district. However, this becomes more complex in cases where parents share legal custody. If the parents live in different school districts, Indiana law allows parents to choose which school district the child will attend by filing an election (see Indiana Code 20-26-11). This is important for parents of children who qualify for special education because a child’s school of legal settlement has certain responsibilities and obligations to a child with special needs under state and federal law. Schools that receive federal funding (all public schools and some charter schools) are required to provide a free and appropriate public education and are responsible for identifying a child who may have special education needs, evaluating that child, and providing research-based accommodations to support the child to succeed academically.

Joint legal custody can pose problems for parents of special-needs children when disputes arise. Courts are often used to settle disputes. However, the number of decisions to be made and the speed of response that is often necessary for children with disabilities can make this remedy ineffective in meeting the best interest of the child. This reinforces the importance of parents, lawyers and judges to consider more than just the typical factors in deciding legal custody of special-needs children.

Physical custody also can pose challenges for parents of children with special needs. When there is a dispute of which parent should have physical custody of a child, Indiana utilizes the “best interest of the child standard” to decide which parent should have primary physical custody. However, these factors tend to be generalized to accommodate the “typical” child. For example, the number of transitions required for an equal parenting time order can pose a large issue for children whose disabilities substantially affect the child’s ability to cope with frequent transition and changes in schedules. These types of plans may be impractical or detrimental for a child with a disability. As a former teacher, I can personally attest to the turmoil that can result when a child with autism is subject to the even the smallest changes in schedule. For children with autism, rigidity and predictability should be favored over equal parenting time and frequent transitions.

There are several other factors that should be considered in deciding physical custody of a child with special needs. While it is impossible to list them all, other factors to consider that may be overlooked are potential issues with transition of specialized equipment for a child with disabilities; transportation factors for the child considering each parent’s availability and work schedule; the parent or caregiver’s training in medical equipment or specialized therapies for the child; the parents’ familiarity with third-party providers; or even the other individuals residing with the parents in their homes. In custody matters, it is important to discuss the unique needs for children with disabilities and ensure each parent is fully equipped to care for that child. Parents and legal representatives need to consider how the child will be affected when determining physical custody, including how that child’s disability may exacerbate different stresses resulting from different parenting time schedules.

Legal and physical custody issues involving special-needs children can best be resolved when the divorcing parties work together. If parents cannot agree and the court needs to make the decision, it’s important for parents and lawyers to work together to educate the court on the child’s unique needs. This may mean the two parties work together on the submission into evidence of Individualized Education Programs or Behavioral Intervention Plans, school records, and progress reports. Regardless of the dispute and the complexities in custody issues of special-needs children, the importance of meeting the best interests of the child is always the priority in family law matters.•

Cassie Ringlespaugh is a family law attorney at Cohen & Malad LLP. She has a special interest in child issues including education law. She can be reached via email at CRinglespaugh@cohenandmalad.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Disagreement if there is special needs
    As a parent of a special needs child, I have gotten more than my fair share of special needs divorce cases. The two issues that I did not see raised in this article are what to do when one parent agrees the child is special needs and the other does not. This usually comes up in the area of mental/emotional problems and not intellectual. The other is when one parent wants to use conventional approaches and the other wants to use non traditional methods, ranging from pro-biotic diets to homeopathy to faith healing. I would like to see peoples take on these issues.

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT