Hi guys,<P>I am so distressed about what is happening to Mental.<P>I don't know about the report you are all referring to (the Gal) but you all seem to be talking about it so disparagingly. Is there a professional body that discounts it?<P>Surely there must be something we can do from here. We are so many people, who have shared this with her, seen her absolute dispair about what is happening, and been here for her. Can't we do anything... something...<P>I can't believe this is happening to her. Can she get someone else to do the report again? Can she say that the person is seemingly biased, for some reason, towards her H.?<P>Can she talk to her local politician. Her Member of Parliament - or your equivalent.<P>I feel so helpless. <P>Your responses will be great, let's see if there is anything we can do for her.

Hey Bonnet,<P>Unfortunately every state in the union has different laws concerning marriage, divorce, child custody and mediation.<P>I'm not sure if she could request a second opinion. It certainly seems that such an important decision should be open to that option.<P>I fear all we can do is offer our support and prayers.<P>Tim

I have searched the internet for hours trying to find cases in Indiana that have removed the GAL. The Indiana Bar Site was down over the weekend. <P>I think if all of us look and look, I would think we could find some kind of caselaw that could help her. <P>And prayers, never hurt.<P>She needs to put her KIDS first, and then keep her strength up. It is so easy to feel like a whipped puppy. I've been through it, I know. It was worse than an affair, a divorce, and abuse.<P>TNT

I'll see what I can do. Just love my high speed cable modem. Will share what I learn.<P>On your marks, get set, research (and pray).<P>Cheers,<BR>Lisa

I have some research done. Here it is, hope it helps Mental.<BR>TNT<BR>(It isn't copy righted, but it is on the Indiana Section of Divorcesource.net)<BR>Child Custody: <BR>What the Courts Consider<P>Whenever a couple with children divorce, they must come to grips with an arrangement for custody and visitation which will foster the well being of their children. Fortunately, most couples are able to agree to the form of custody they will employ for the future rearing of their children.<P>However, when one parent, contrary to the wishes of the other parent, seeks to be granted "sole" custody (or, be appointed the "primary residential parent" in joint custody cases) the court must ultimately make the decision.<P>During the initial custody determination the question "What is in the best interest of the children?" means the court must decide which parent can best provide for the particular child's needs. It does not require a showing that the opposing parent is "unfit" or has "abandoned" the children. Rather, the court attempts to determine the child's best interest by examining the following factors as they relate to the child and the proposed environments of the two parents.<P>(1) The age and sex of the child. For example, as a child matures his/her needs may be better met by the same-sex parent.<P>(2) The wishes of the child's parent(s). One parent might wish to provide the child numerous forms of cultural, spiritual, academic or athletic enrichment. The other parent may have wishes that are not so ambitious but, perhaps, more realistic for their particular child.<P>(3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child's wishes if the child is at least 14 years old. This factor does not give the child final say, rather, it requires the court to take more seriously the desires of an older child.<P>(4) The interaction or interrelationship of the child with his parent(s)., his siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest. One parent may provide a warm and nurturing relationship whereas the other may not be so adept. One may provide frequent interaction with extended family members the other may be more isolated.<P>(5) The child's adjustment to home, school and community. The child's adjustment can be measured by school performance and the extent and quality of his involvement in his community.<P>(6) The mental and physical health of allindividuals involved. For example, an Indiana trial court was affirmed on appeal even though it awarded custody of a child to a quadriplegic parent instead of the physically health parent because the latter was a pathologically self-centered person who took no interest in the child, quit his job and squandered some of the quadriplegic parent's settlement money.<P>(7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic violence by either parent. This latest factor was added to the law in 1996. It is well recognized that abusive adults learn these patterns of behavior as children. Thus, the court may want to avoid placing a child with a parent who is abusive.<P>While any one or a combination of these factors may lead a client to seek sole or primary custody of a child, a parent must still keep in mind that to be selected as the primary custodial parent he or she will need to demonstrate to the court a plan for the successful day to day fulfillment of being the custodial parent.<P>“Joint” and “Sole” custody terms can be confusing to divorcing parents <P>There are various custody arrangements which can be entered into after a divorce, and possibly, as the result of a decree of paternity. The most typical form of custody is “sole” custody. That is, the custodial parent has exclusive physical custody of a child, subject only to the non-custodial parent’s visitation rights. Under this form of custody, the custodial parent has the right to make all important decisions on behalf of that child. The non-custodial parent’s visitation rights are usually set by the court according to local rules and guidelines. <P>“Joint legal custody” is a term of law used to describe an arrangement whereby both parents share the authority and responsibility for the major decisions concerning the child’s upbringing, including the child’s education, health care, and religious training. An award of joint custody does not necessarily mean that the parties will share physical custody of the child. Most often, one parent will have primary physical custody of the child with the non-custodial parent having visitation rights, similar to those exercised by noncustodial parents under “sole” custody arrangements. <P>Whether the parties have a “sole custody” or “joint legal custody” arrangement, they may agree to virtually any arrangement for sharing time with their children. For example, we have handled cases where the parties have agreed to “visitation” ranging from alternating weekends and holidays to an equal division of time with the children on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis. <P>In determining whether an award of joint legal custody is appropriate under a given circumstance, a court will consider whether the parties agree to such an arrangement. Additionally, the court will look at the following factors:<P>The fitness and suitability of each of the persons awarded joint custody. It is unlikely that a court will award joint custody to a parent who is mentally unstable, has a substance abuse problem, or has a history of committing physical abuse. The court’s primary interest is in protecting the well-being of the child. <P>Whether the persons awarded joint custody are willing and able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child’s welfare. This factor is crucial. However, communication can break down even in an intact family. For that reason, the members of this firm frequently recommend to our clients that their custody agreements require mediation if an intractable dispute arises between them regarding a child rearing issue. <P>The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the child’s wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age, and whether the child has established a close and beneficial relationship with both of the persons awarded joint custody. <P>Whether the persons awarded joint custody live in close proximity to each other and plan to continue to do so. While close proximity is not necessary, it is our experience that it is more difficult for a noncustodial parent to be apprised of current situations and to keep abreast of details in the child’s life if he or she lives outside the child’s community. Close proximity is particularly important if the parties share substantially equal time with the children on a weekly basis.<P>The nature of the physical and emotional environment in the home of each of the persons awarded joint custody. It is important for each parent to have a stable home. Again, the court is determining what is in the child’s best interest and stability is an important aspect of good parenting. <P>A determination that the parties share “joint legal custody” normally does not affect the amount of support paid by the “visiting” parent, unless he/she has greater than usual visitation. Even in “sole custody” situations, the non-custodial parent is entitled to a discount on child support if he/she has the children for visitation on alternating weekends. Where the parties have agreed to an equal time share, the spouse with the greater income will usually have to pay some child support, though substantially less than what he/she would have paid if exercising less visitation. Unfortunately, sometimes a parent will seek greatly expanded visitation primarily to reduce his/her child support obligation; or, conversely, a parent will oppose such an arrangement in order to receive higher child support. Such a strategy where the support-paying parent was not highly involved in the child's activities prior to separation may not be in the child's best interest and, if opposed by the support-receiving parent, will certainly increase both parties' attorneys' fees. Likewise, opposition to increased visitation because of a desire to prevent a reduction in support hurts the child, the child's relationship with both parents, and increase both parties' attorneys' fees, where the visiting parent has been highly involved with the child before separation. <P>IV. Custody<P>In 1994 and 1996, the Indiana General Assembly revised the modification statutes governing child custody. Due to these revisions, Indiana courts have recently reviewed a number of child custody cases. Joe v. Lebow reviewed the differences between the pre-1994 dissolution and paternity modification statutes and the new modification statutes. As the court pointed out, the former statutes had different standards for modification of custody in both paternity and dissolution actions. The legislature has now incorporated the same requirements in each statute so that they are identical.<P>In Lebow, the child lived with mother in Maryland and visited father regularly in Indiana. After having a series of physical and developmental problems as a youngster, the child's health stabilized. When the child was eleven years old, father began to have concerns about the child's obesity and depressed mood. During the period of visitation, father took the child to a physician and a social worker. Based upon their findings and his concerns, father filed a "Verified Emergency Petition for Temporary Custody" and was awarded temporary custody. Prior to the final hearing, father, mother and the child submitted to a psychological evaluation. With the help of expert testimony, the trial court found that "substantial changes" had occurred in four of the factors enumerated by statute and, accordingly, the father was granted custody. On appeal, the mother argued that the decision was based on changes in the child's condition while in the temporary custody of her father and that there had been no substantial changes in the child's circumstances while living with her. The appellate court upheld the trial court's determination that custody should be modified, stating that both the "best interests" and "substantial change in at least one of the original factors" tests had been satisfied. However, the appellate court emphasized that a change in custody may not be premised on a change in the child's condition occurring while in the temporary care of the moving party. Furthermore, the court stated,<P>The amendments [to the modification statutes] do not do away wholesale with the longstanding policy of stability that has animated caselaw in this area, however, and this policy is not to be disregarded, but rather, reconsidered in each case with respect to whether a substantial change in the factors relevant to the best interests of the child has occurred.<P>Van Schoyck v. Van Schoyck addresses whether the trial court can retroactively apply the modification statute. The parties in this action filed their petitions in May 1994, and in June 1994 and the matter was set for hearing on August 18, 1994. The trial court applied the new statute, effective July 1, 1994, in its findings of fact and order which modified the court's previous order and awarded residential custody to father.<P>Although the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's usage of the revised statute, the court reversed the trial court's holding that modified custody. The revised statute provides that a change in custody must be in the best interests of the child and there must be "a substantial change in one or more of the factors which were initially used to determine child custody." Because the trial court clearly stated in its findings that the child was healthy, happy, well-adjusted and comfortable, the trial court's decision was contradictory to the statute. The court of appeals stated that "there was insufficient evidence of a substantial change in one or more of the factors which were initially used to determine child custody."<P>In Sills v. Irelan, the Indiana Court of Appeals dealt with an issue of first impression. In this post-paternity matter, father, who was in the military and stationed in Korea, filed a petition for modification of custody. The child had been taken to the emergency room on two different occasions with serious head injuries, and the authorities were focusing their investigation on the mother's boyfriend. Although the trial court allowed the mother to retain custody, it further ordered that she have no contact with her boyfriend. The mother appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court's order violated her First Amendment freedom of association.<P>First, the court noted that "[i]n crafting a custody order, whether in dissolution or paternity proceedings, the paramount concern is the best interest of the child." The court continued, in response to mother's contentions, that the "freedom of association is not absolute, however, and must yield to sufficiently important governmental interests if the means are closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms." Because the government has a great interest in child custody cases, "the trial court's consideration of a parent's associations in a custody determination does not violate her freedom of association." The mother's right to freedom of association must yield to the best interests of the child. <P>The court also noted that the extent of a court's authority to restrict a parent's custody in a paternity case was an issue of first impression in Indiana. Because no statute is applicable to paternity cases, the court construed paternity and dissolution custody/visitation statutes together in its holding that restrictions can be placed on a parent in a paternity case. The court relied on Teegarden v. Teegarden and on the statute. The court of appeals stated that a court "has an important interest in placing restrictions upon custody orders entered in paternity cases which serve to protect children from situations which would endanger their physical health or significantly impair their emotional development."<P>Name: Bippette<BR> <BR>Date/Time: 3/24/2000 7:45 pm<BR> <BR>Subject: Here's the actual text. Oppps.<BR> <P>Body: <P>which is currently working on creatig STATEWIDE visitation guidelines. For those of you new to this...currently each county has its own vistitation guidelines and they vary widely. Below is an email from Bob Monday...head of PACE concerning the first draft of these new vistiation guidelines. Please note that these is a DRAFT...and also what Bob has summarized out of the draft. <P>I should be getting a copy of the draft soon, and I'll share it with you. <P>There is STILL opportunity to get some changes in...you can have your voice heard by writing to the Indiana Domestic Relations Committee. But as Bob requests at the end of his email...please wait until the official first draft comes out and read it carefully before you send your letters. <P>The Indiana Domestic Relations Committee has just concluded their second retreat, and has now developed an initial draft of the statewide visitation guidelines. It has been interesting to see the evolution of some ground-breaking changes, such as the highly controversial "no overnights for very young children" policy (see Lake County Guidelines <BR>for a starting point). At present, that is now defined to say that if the noncustodial can demonstrate that he/she has had substantial care responsibilities for the very young child, then parenting time should include overnights for children of all ages. If not, there is a phasing in of <BR>responsibilities from birth to 18 months or possibly longer (assuming that the parent has met the responsibilities during that entire period, and not simply come into the <BR>system with a child at the age of 18 months...). Note that <BR>this is not saying that the care of OTHER children, even in the same family, is equivalent to the care that must have been provided for THIS child. <P>Separation/divorce during pregnancy and paternity fathers <BR>will be at a SEVERE disadvantage in obtaining overnights with very young children, probably not having "been there" to demonstrate such care. <P>Because duration has been reduced, frequency has been <BR>increased. The young child (with or without overnights) will still have frequent contact with the noncustodial parent, ranging from 2 hours per day for three days per week for children from birth to 4 months, and to up to 10 hours per day on three nonconsecutive days per week (one of the days being Saturday or Sunday) for children 12-18 months. That is significantly MORE "awake time" than <BR>noncustodials of very young children now get, in my <BR>opinion! In any case, overnights are to begin by age 3. <P>Other significant changes include: <P>1. The child, regardless of age, cannot make the decision <BR>whether they will or will not participate in "parenting time". This SPECIFICALLY includes adolescents and teens, with the justification that they, too, need parental <BR>supervision. This will finally END the argument that <BR>"..Jane/John didn't want to go.."! <P>2. Both parents are EXPECTED to fulfill their responsibilities under the parenting time plan. "Parenting time is both a right and an obligation, and scheduled parenting time shall occur as planned. If a parent is unable to provide personal care for the child... then that parent shall provide alternate child care or pay the costs of child care necessitated by the failure to exercise the scheduled parenting time." Note that care has been taking to not just single out the noncustodial here: both <BR>parents have obligations! <P>3. When clothing for the child is not available in the <BR>noncustodial's home, the custodial parent shall send an appropriate and adequate supply with the child, and the noncustodial parent shall return such clothing in clean condition. <P>4. Adjustments to the schedule (for things like illnesses, <BR>special family events, etc.) shall result in "make up time" as soon as possible. The parent who lost time with the child may decide to forgo the make-up time, but their <BR>is THEIR decision, not the custodial parent's or the child's. <P>5. A custodial parent is required to give written orization to the school, healthcare providers, and insurance companies that they may communicate directly with the noncustodial parent and shall not interfere with such <BR>communication. <P>6. Parenting time enforcement sanctions are referenced by <BR>Indiana Code. These include contempt, injunctive relief, criminal prosecution, and attorney fees. Many judges, attorneys, and parents are not aware of these <BR>sanctions, so they are listed to educate and encourage <BR>application as required. <P>7. "First right of refusal" for child care. The judges <BR>have been VERY careful to avoid the quoted terms in the Guideline, but basically, if someone other than a family member will be caring for the child (such as "hired childcare"), the other parent shall first be offered such time with the child. If they accept, the childcare is without cost... however, they are under no obligation to accept the responsibility. Too far, not enough notice, insufficient duration to justify? No obligation exists. Note again that this doesn't say "custodial" "Noncustodial". If EITHER parent has <BR>such a need, the other parent should first be consulted. <P>While there are many factors which may result in a different parenting time arrangement for families separated by significant distance, the Committee also included a schedule for use when no agreement of the parents ahs <BR>been reached. This schedule does not specify who pays for what, but rather, how much time (frequency and duration) is expected as a MINIMUM. It starts with non-overnight sessions for very young children (the noncustodial will <BR>have to travel to the city where the very young child resides), but quickly gets into "six non-consecutive two-week segments annually, each separated by at least 6 weeks... (which) including the pickup and return <BR>of the child, no segment shall exceed 16 days" for children 3-5 (6?) years old. <P>I am trying to quote from a working copy which was heavily <BR>revised, so wording may not be entirely accurate. I encourage you to review the specific wording when the draft is made available. <P>There are still many things I'd like to see addressed by <BR>the Guideline, and some of these may be added in the final review (May-June) after the feedback has begun. These would include written exchange of drug allergies, teen <BR>use of a of car during "visitation", some revisions to the <BR>holidays (MLK day is not included... yet), the use of "prior demonstrated experience" of noncustodials as they seek overnights with very young children, and others. <BR>A HUGE caveat is that "These Guidelines shall not apply to <BR>situations involving family violence, substance abuse, risk of flight with a child, or any other circumstance the Court reasonably believes will endanger the child's health, safety, or well-being." <P>I will let you know as soon as the draft is available for <BR>distribution and/or has been posted on the Supreme Court web site. <P>While I'd be glad to accumulate and pass along your comments to the committee, you will be MUCH more effective (and your letter will be included in the final release of <BR>the Guideline supporting materials... you'll be perpetually <BR>famous!) if you send it directly to the Domestic Relations Committee at Indiana Judicial Administration (the office of the Supreme Court... see web page for address). Just wait for the official draft, though, before commenting on <BR>specifics. <P>If you think that this email was long, wait until you see <BR>the Guidelines! They're now 25-30 pages. <P>Bob Monday <BR>PACE <BR> <P>FAMILY & JUVENILE LAW SECTION<BR>OFFICERS - Terms Expire September 2000<BR>Chair<P><BR>Laurie A. Lazich Bigsby, 125 North St. Peter Street, South Bend 46617;<P> Telephone: (219) 234-7606; Fax: (219) 282-1360<BR>Chair-Elect<P>Paul A. Leonard Jr., 9013 Indianapolis Blvd., Highland 46322;<P> Telephone: (219) 838-9200; Fax: (219) 972-7110<BR>Secretary<P>Donna J. Bays, 302 North Alabama St., Indianapolis 46204<BR>Treasurer<P>Andrew Z. Soshnick, 300 North Meridian St., Suite 2700,<P> Indianapolis 46204-1702<P>Past Chair<P><BR>Linda K. Meier, 200 South Madison, P. O. Box 127,<P> Greenwood 46142<P>COUNCIL - Terms End September 2000<BR>Court of Appeals<BR>District No. 1<P><BR>Hon. Bruce V. Stengel, Vermillion Circuit Court,<P> P. O. Box 70, Newport 47966<P>J. David Roellgen, P. O. Box 215, Vincennes 47591-0215<BR>District No. 2<P>A. Michelle Brown-Stohler, 222 West Market St.,<P> P. O. Box 295, Bluffton 46714<P>S. K. Reid, 8402 Broadway, Indianapolis 46240<BR>District No. 3<P>Carol Bennett Rhodes, 200 East Main St., #1000, P. O. Box 10810,<P> Fort Wayne 46854-0810<P>Perry D. Shilts, 444 E. Main St., Fort Wayne 46802-1910<P>COMMITTEES<BR>Family Violence<P><BR>Linda K. Meier, 200 South Madison, P. O. Box 127,<P> Greenwood 46142<BR>Juvenile Law<P>Laurie A. Bigsby, 125 North St. Peter Street, South Bend 46617<BR>Legislation<P>Timothy J. O'Hara, 2600 One Indiana Square,<P> Indianapolis 46204<P>Mediation - Alternative Dispute Resolution<P><BR>Caroline A. Gilchrist, 7388 Business Center Drive,<P> Avon 46123<P>Gregory L. Laker, 136 N. Delaware St., Suite 300,<P> P. O. Box 627, Indianapolis 46206-0627<BR>Newsletter<P>Perry D. Shilts, 444 E. Main St., Fort Wayne 46802-1910<BR>Res Gestae<P>Donna J. Bays, 302 N. Alabama St., Indianapolis 46204<P>Ann G. Davis, 12 N. Third St., P. O. Box 757,<P> Lafayette 47902-0757<P>Staff Liaison: Susan Jacobs (317) 639-5465 <BR>

Thanks for your responses. I have worried about Mental all night, but being in a different country, it's hard to know what your laws etc are, and where to go.<P>One thing that jumps out at me though is this.<BR>I think I remember Mental writing in one of her posts that H had abused both her and the children. I don't know if this was physical, or verbal, but abuse is abuse. (I am aware that there are varying degrees of abuse) He would abuse children, then blame the children, abuse her, then blame her. I think I've got that right.<P>So, my point is this. According to what TNT posted, if the childrens opinions can be taken into account, surely there must be something that can be done.<BR>Could a doctor be called as a witness for her, or one of the children's teachers, or a neighbour? <P>I myself have had suicidal thoughts, does that mean that my H can use this against me also? Surely, anyone, someone, with half a brain, can realise the incredible stress we are going through when placed in these infidelity situations and realise that her actions at that time were a direct result of that stress. Mental has now seemingly got a grip on things, and is dealing with what is happening, and is dealing with it responsibly and rationally.<BR>Surely her H has to be held accountable for some of his actions too.<P>There has to be some way she can get another invigliator to do the report, in a non-biased way.<BR>Would a psychologist's report on her mental health help?<BR>Maybe if she went to court armed with some reports of her own, about how she faced and dealt with all this, it would stand her in good stead.<BR>I am praying so hard for her. It seems so unfair.<BR>I also keep thinking back to the story of "Not Without My Daughter". She had to do without her daugher for some period of time, but eventually she got her back. Good does triumph over evil. I hope and pray so hard that this will be the case for Mental.<P>TNT - thanks for that. I hope somehow we can use the information to help Mental. If anyone deserves our help and support at the moment, it's her.<P>I'll keep wracking my brains.<BR>