Lightfoot breaks silence on ties to court
NWI Times
Nov 26, 1996
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/lightfoot-breaks-silence-on-ties-to-court/article_8bf8eb47-16f7-5c86-a488-ea18bf24fa9b.html
BURNS HARBOR - Guardian ad litem Beatrice Lightfoot of Burns Harbor responded Monday to news articles that chronicled her relationship to the courts that appoint her....
Lightfoot briefly discusses her significant political contributions to the court as following "no political lines, nor (having) any political agenda. They were, and always will be, directed to those whom I believe will best serve the needs of the children of our county."...
Lightfoot's letter discusses a training program for guardians ad litem arranged by the Children/Parent Center, the children's visitation center she co-founded with Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber...
NWI Times
Nov 3, 1996
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/criticisms-prompt-new-court-rules/article_00b16963-05ef-5e94-a5f4-93214d138711.html
VALPARAISO - Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber helped his court-appointed guardian ad litem, Beatrice Lightfoot, found a children's visitation center.
Incorporation documents filed Oct. 16, 1995 show Webber, Lightfoot and Steven Krieger, now of Michigan, are co-incorporators of the Children-Parent Center in Chesterton, a nonprofit corporation to which Webber in his official judicial duties approves families for supervised visitation, transfers between divorcing parents, and parenting classes.
An annual report received by the state Sept. 24, 1996, names Lightfoot president and Krieger secretary. Webber's name appears as one of nine board members...
Center helps families rebuild bonds of love
NWI Times
Dec 8, 1995
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/center-helps-families-rebuild-bonds-of-love/article_5cbb5036-f442-55be-aa0a-89bb15011983.html
CHESTERTON -- Children and their parents are finding time to share and rebuild the bonds of family love, thanks in part to the Children/Parent Center.
"Families are Forever" is the motto of the center, which was established to provide a warm, comfortable setting for families to "find each other".
The center receives court referrals from the Porter County Superior Courts related to marital dissolutions and offers supervised and unsupervised visitation for children, parents and other relatives of the children. Transfers for custodial visitation and parenting classes are also offered at no expense to the parents.
Beatrice Lightfoot, Guardian Ad Litem for the Porter County Superior Courts, established the Children/Parent Center in October to meet a need for families in Porter and other counties for extended hours and especially holiday and week-end availability.
The non-profit corporation is located at 709-7 Plaza Drive in the Indian Boundary Plaza in Chesterton and is open 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturdays and Sundays are scheduled for the convenience of people referred for visitation.
The center is also open on holidays from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. so that children will be able to share this time with their parents and families.
Karen L. Klein is director of the center. Klein was previously employed as office manager and visit supervisor at Family House in Valparaiso for two years, following 32 years of professional experience in the medical and business field. She will also supervise visits and transfers at the Children/Parent Center.
On Thanksgiving Day, the center's families and children enjoyed a turkey dinner compliments of The Country Cafe restaurant in Chesterton.
The restaurant, which is owned by Tom Nellesson and John and Diane Skoutaris, donated a turkey dinner with all the trimmings.
Any donations to the center are greatly appreciated. For more information, contact the facility at 921-0541.
A Child's Rights
A child has the right to love each parent without being subjected to the other parent's hurt or anger.
A child has the right to develop an independent and meaningful relationship with each parent and to enjoy the uniqueness of each parent and each home.
A child has the right to be free from involvement in parent's personal battles or being used as a spy, messenger, or a bargaining chip.
A child has the right to extended family relationships, which include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and others and to appreciate the unique differences of each side of his or her family and not have these differences referred to as better or worse.
A child has the right to be free from questions about the other parent's private life.
A child has the right to see his or her parents treat each other in a courteous and respectful manner.
A child has the right to develop and maintain activities and friends without fear of losing time with a parent.
A child has the right to be a child without having to assume adult and/or parental roles or duties.
A Parent's Rights
A parent has the right to love and nurture one's child without harassment from the other parent.
A parent has the right to receive respect and courtesy and the obligation to show respect and courtesy.
A parent has the right to attend and participate in a child's special activities.
A parent has the right to information regarding a child's physical, mental and emotional health.
A parent has the right during parenting time to follow one's own standards, beliefs and style of child-rearing without interference from the other parent.
A parent has the right to a separate and private life.
Guardian angel of the innocent
Woman dedicates life to give children a voice in court
Post-Tribune
January 1, 1996
Richard and Bea Lightfoot worked throughout their lives, saving money for their nest egg.
But when Richard Lightfoot died of cancer eight years ago, Bea Lightfoot took the money and ran to the aid of children.
Answering a want ad for a volunteer court-appointed special advocate, Lightfoot completed the necessary training and now donates her time in child custody battles.
But she didn't stop there.
Taking her concern for children one step further, Lightfoot created a neutral zone for cases requiring supervised visitations with the non-custodial parent with the opening of Children/Family Center in late October.
''I figured it was Richard's time to go and it was my time to take care of the kids,'' Lightfoot said.
''I would like to change the children so they will be different when they are adults. They have done nothing wrong, yet they are afraid and sad,'' she said. ''We can't change everything right away, but we are working on it.''
Because she opened the center after county budget appropriations were made for 1996, it means that the rent, utilities, telephone bills and wages are paid out of Lightfoot's pocket. The incidentals of raising a family are also financed by Lightfoot. To date she has spent more than $50,000 to get the center up and running.
''I don't mind. I like what I do,'' she said. ''These kids become mine. I want to make everything OK for them.''
Often children show up hungry and cold. Lightfoot feeds and clothes them. With the help of local businesses, 32 family members joined at the center for a Thanksgiving dinner with all the trimmings. On Christmas Day more than 60 children were given presents from Santa Lightfoot.
Next year Lightfoot hopes that county appropriations will include the center, but she says she will continue her fight for children as long as money allows.
''I believe every child should see the other parent. If they behave appropriately, then the children should spend weekends with them. But if there are problems, we are here to make sure the children can visit with their parent,'' she said.
Valparaiso's Family House offers supervised visitation, but its operating hours are prohibitive to working parents, said Valparaiso attorney Richard Cagen. That's why Lightfoot's Children/Parent Center, which is open 10 hours a day, seven days a week, is more conducive to family visits, he said.
Judge wants complaints resolved
NWI Times
Feb 26, 1996
What is a guardian ad litem?
Indiana law allows family court judges to appoint a guardian ad litem to "represent and protect the best interests of the child" in divorce and custody proceedings.
A guardian ad litem may:
* subpoena witnesses
* present evidence
* perform investigations
* prepare reports for the court
Although many of Indiana's guardians ad litem are lawyers, state law does not specify any educational requirements. Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas W. Webber Sr. wants the sheriff to figure out whether complaints against a prominent court volunteer have merit or are the by-product of bitter divorces.
In recent weeks, complaints about the performance of Beatrice Lightfoot, who volunteers her services to family court, have come to the attention of all six county judges.
Lightfoot, a wealthy Portage area landowner, has served for a number of years as a court-appointed guardian ad litem to protect the interests of children in divorce and custody proceedings. Lightfoot is the benefactor who in 1992 contributed $60,000 to the court to provide services to the same children.
Most recently, Lightfoot opened the Children/Parent Center in Chesterton, where children may visit with non-custodial parents.
The judges do not know the sources of the allegations, which range from providing false information to the court to her request for county funds for a children's center.
Lightfoot said on Saturday she believes the criticism is coming from parents who have misdirected their anger at losing custody of their children.
"I have no authority to take children away from their parents," Lightfoot said. "When you get a divorce case and you get a custody battle, I'll investigate. That's all I do."
Lightfoot said her accusers need "to go to the judge" and prove their complaints.
"What bothers me is that they think a woman who just does investigations can take their children away," she said.
"Some of the allegations go beyond sour grapes," Webber said last week. "They go to ethical and legal allegations."
Webber said he is asking the sheriff's department "to investigate the accusations and take action if warranted."
Webber said he suspects the complaints are groundless, the product of people intimately involved in divorce cases and not an unbiased citizens' watch group.
The sheriff could have problems with an investigation because Webber says he doesn't know who the actual complainants are.
Lightfoot is the only guardian ad litem among the county's estimated half-dozen such officers of the court who is not an attorney. Complaints against her performance came to the judges' attention through the intercession of a Dune Acres woman, Helen Boothe. Her hand-carried letter told the judges the information came to her through "friends of friends over the last 18
months."
Boothe submitted to the judges a 13-point statement outlining alleged misconduct by Lightfoot in her role as guardian ad litem.
Among other complaints, the statement alleges that Lightfoot presented "an exaggerated/distorted account of reality to the court."
Boothe also provided judges an eight-point petition objecting to the potential impact of Lightfoot's activities on the county budget. The petition, signed by some 35 area individuals, says Lightfoot's new center duplicates existing services offered by Valparaiso's Family House, which is already supported by county funds.
Within recent weeks, Lightfoot has written the Porter County Council asking how to apply for county funds to help defray the costs of operating the Children/Parent Center.
The petition also questions the "neutrality" of Lightfoot referring her own cases to the center and the lack of an entity to supervise the operation.
But Webber claims the group is "mixing apples and oranges." Webber says the two centers address families with different dynamics.
Lightfoot's center deals exclusively with children whose parents are fighting each other, and Family House deals with parents who are fighting the child welfare department.
Porter Superior Court Judge Jeffrey L. Thode, who until the last election served as a court commissioner in family court, said he had no reason to doubt Lightfoot.
Thode believes there are safeguards against abuse by a guardian ad litem because the judge has the final call. He has ruled against Lightfoot on occasion, he said.
The bigger problem, according to Thode, are the dynamics of divorce.
"Divorce is a creature of statute," Thode said, "and everybody who gets divorced wants to erase all those years. The problem is you can't pretend you were never married."
Even with the safeguards, the guardian ad litem is not a perfect approach to the results of a bitter divorce, Thode said. "But I'd like to hear a better approach if someone's got one."
Porter Superior Court Judge Nancy Vaidik said the judges discussed the complaints at the judges' last monthly meeting.
"We have agreed as judges that (the complaints) need to be looked into,"
Vaidik said. "That's not saying there's anything wrong, but we're going to look into them to see."
Porter Superior Court Judge Mary Harper said: "This is a good opportunity to look at the overall organization and ensure we don't have duplication of services and unnecessary allocation of funds. It's good this whole area is being reviewed."
"I know there are complaints," Porter Superior Court Judge Roger Bradford said. "I think if there's something lacking, it would be training. There is no specific guardian ad litem training. That's why it's mostly attorneys."
Mother presents testimony against child advocate
Post-Tribune
February 28, 1996
With the scars from her caesarian section still fresh and with her infant son in her arms, Kim Cole once found herself in the cold, tossed out by an abusive, alcoholic husband.
Two years later, her ex-husband has custody of the same son, at the recommendation, she said, of the child's court-appointed advocate.
Cole, 31, of Chesterton, came to Porter County Council Thursday with others opposed to Children/Parent Center Inc., of Chesterton.
The center, owned by Beatrice Lightfoot, the advocate who represented Cole's infant son in Cole's custody dispute, is seeking to be placed on the 1997 Porter County budget to provide supervised visitations ordered by the county court system.
Currently Family House of Valparaiso arranges for such supervised visitations between parents and children.
''I want the public to know that a program like this is going on. Any time, anywhere, someone may have the power to take your child away from you,'' Cole said.
Cole said she opposes Lightfoot personally and the advocate system in general.
Karen L. Klein, director of Children/Parent Center Inc., in waiting to appear before the Council Tuesday night, said Lightfoot is a court-appointed advocate with additional training in CASA, a volunteer program courts use to train advocates for children.
Slated to appear before the Council to present information related to the center, Klein defended the advocate system, although she admitted that supervised visitation programs in the United States are an unregulated industry. ''The Supervised Visitation Network of U.S. and Canada is currently working on standards for that,'' she said.
A former employee of Family House, Klein said 90 per cent of the cases where supervised visitations are ordered are due to substance abuse in the family. The others usually involve hotly contested divorces, she said.
Klein said she recalls Family House billing the county for as much as $5,200 in a month for services provided to welfare clients alone.
She said that she hopes the Children/Parent Center, Inc. will provide extended hours and a location more appropriate for some clients.
During a break, before Klein's presentation was heard, Porter County Council president Ruth Ann McWhorter said Family House is listed by name in the county's budget and that the service is part of the court's budget.
Advocate foes' stories unravel
Post-Tribune
February 29, 1996
http://infoweb.newsbank.com.proxy.portagelibrary.info/resources/doc/nb/news/1084D869DA1D0097?p=AWNB
When Kimberly Cole told the Porter County Council a heart-wrenching story Tuesday night about how she lost custody of her toddler to an alcoholic ex-husband because of a court-appointed guardian's recommendation, she left out a few details.
The guardian, Beatrice Lightfoot of Chesterton, actually recommended joint custody, according to court documents. But the magistrate who heard the case, James Johnson, decided to award custody to the father.
Cole also neglected to tell the council that she's facing battery charges for striking another child, a 7-year-old boy from her now-ex-husband's previous marriage. The injuries were severe enough to require hospitalization.
Cole went before the council because Lightfoot is seeking county funding for her Children/Parent Center, which she operates to provide supervised visitation for families involved in custody disputes.
The council said it is up to the courts to request funding for the center in next year's budget.
Lightfoot has served the county courts as a guardian ad litem, or court-appointed advocate for children, for the past several years.
But she has come under fire because Helen Boothe of Dune Acres recently wrote a letter to county judges complaining that Lightfoot was biased and presented false information to the court.
Boothe didn't cite specific instances, but instead wrote that she'd learned of the alleged problems through ''friends of friends.'' Still, the allegations were serious enough that the judges asked the sheriff's department to investigate.
But when Cole appeared before the council Tuesday, some began wondering if the ''friends'' aren't people embittered over coming out on the losing side of custody cases.
''She does not conduct herself in a professional manner,'' Cole said. ''Everyone should know what people are like who are asking for your money. I don't want my tax dollars going to her.''
Boothe declined Wednesday to say who her ''friends of friends'' are and what problems they had with Lightfoot. As for Cole's comments to the council, she said, ''I don't know. I guess you can read the (court) case.''
Attempts to contact Lightfoot on Wednesday were unsuccessful.
Lightfoot, although trained as a Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), is not an attorney. Even Lightfoot's critics say that she is well-meaning. If anything, her fault is sometimes being in ''over her head,'' they say.
Judges say that people think the guardians have more power than is actually the case. They are charged only with representing the child's interests before the court. They don't have the power to remove children from the home.
They observe the child, investigate and make recommendations. And like other advocates, such as probation officers, judges don't always follow the recommendations.
''But the guardian ad litem is often the person they perceive as making the decision,'' said Johnson, who heard Cole's divorce case, which was finalized in December.
''If (Cole) is going to be mad at anyone, she ought to be mad at me, I suppose.''
County Council questions need for second child center
NWI Times
Feb 29, 1996
VALPARAISO - The Porter County Council is the wrong forum for debating the performance and compensation of guardian ad litem Beatrice Lightfoot and the program she founded for divorced parents and their children, council members said.
Lightfoot's request that the county reimburse her for representing children in rancorous divorce cases attracted emotional protests from parents and other child advocates who insist Lightfoot is unfit to represent children or operate her Children/Parent Center in Chesterton.
The council told the center director on Tuesday that no appropriation for Lightfoot would be considered unless the county judges request funding as part of the court system's budget.
"Without a request there's nothing we're going to do," Council member Karen Martin said. "If it's not in the budget, it's not going to get heard."
The council grilled center director Karen Klein about the need for Lightfoot's services when the county is already paying for other child advocates and subsidizing another house for supervised visitation by non-custodial parents.
"I think what we're hearing is that the council would probably look on this as a duplication of services," Council President Ruth Ann McWhorter said.
Klein maintained that Lightfoot's Children/Parent Center offers longer hours and more services than the county-funded Family House in Valparaiso.
Klein said Lightfoot opened her own center last fall because of numerous scheduling conflicts with Family House and personality clashes with the house's staff.
Lightfoot's center provides a neutral location for children to meet with their non-custodial parents. Lightfoot also serves as a court-appointed guardian ad litem in custody disputes. When judges decide which parent to award custody to, they often rely on Lightfoot's investigations about the parents' conduct and the quality of parents' living conditions.
Although most guardians ad litem are attorneys appointed by the court for specific custody cases, Lightfoot has been volunteering as a guardian for several years.
Lightfoot is not an attorney, but she donated $60,000 to the court system to establish a guardian ad litem program. The program has yet to be implemented. Klein said Lightfoot has cases in Porter, Lake and LaPorte counties and presented letters of support for Lightfoot from judges and the Division of Child and Family Services.
But Kim Cole of Chesterton accused Lightfoot of being confrontational and high-handed in evaluating parents in custody cases. Lightfoot also was accused of disregarding non-custodial parents' rights, overlooking violations of custody orders and lying about the fathers' child-rearing capabilities.
"She has presented herself in a very forceful manner," Cole said during emotional testimony about her experiences with Lightfoot.
Who is getting the children?
NWI Times
Mar 3, 1996
GAL* DIVORCES
No. of Cases Filed Disposed
1994 30 901 897
1995 30 873 830
*Guardian Ad Litem (indicates number of cases to which a GAL was appointed or reappointed)
Source: Porter County Court Administrator
Fees paid to attorneys serving as guardians ad litem
1994 $8,596
1995 $6,180
Source: Porter County Auditor's Office
Editor's note: Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas W. Webber Sr. has asked sheriff's police to investigate complaints against a court volunteer, Beatrice Lightfoot, who serves as a guardian ad litem for children in family court. But Lightfoot says she's being unfairly targeted by families who don't understand her role. Here's a portrait of how and why courts intercede as a family disintegrates.
"In April 1993 he moved to Arizona to find a job and found a girlfriend instead. He came back in July and took the children. I went (to Arizona) in December to try to get the children." - Sharon Reed
Nearly three years later, Reed is still trying to retrieve her children.
The experience introduced Reed to a house of horrors called divorce.
To Reed, complicating the picture, rather than helping, was the court's appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the best interests of her children.
Reed, like other parents who recently have come forward, is convinced the guardian ad litem, Beatrice Lightfoot of Chesterton, caused her children to be taken away.
But Lightfoot says parents overestimate the influence and authority of a guardian ad litem.
What is a guardian ad litem?
Addressing the issue when Reed's complaints surfaced nearly two years ago was Ann M. Haralambie, a lawyer who specializes in family and juvenile law in Tucson.
According to the Civitas Child Law Center at Loyola University Chicago, Haralambie "literally wrote the book" on the issue.
She is the author of "The Child's Attorney" and the two-volume tome, "Handling Child Custody Cases." The American Law Institute-American Bar Association awarded her a special merit award in 1993, in part for the latter book. She travels the country, training judges and lawyers in child custody issues.
"A major point I make in that book is that nobody knows what the heck the role (of a guardian ad litem) is," Haralambie says.
"In concept, the guardian ad litem is supposed to represent the child's best interests to the extent a guardian ad litem can figure out what that is.
"Various (state) statutes may have nothing beyond the court may appoint a guardian ad litem. Some states have very, very specific rules."
In Indiana, the statute specifies that a "guardian ad litem" and a "court-appointed special advocate" may subpoena witnesses, present evidence, perform investigations and prepare reports for the court.
The terms are used interchangeably. And their goals are the same.
"The idea is to put as much information before a judge as possible so a judge can make a full, informed recommendation," according to Scott Newton, a spokesman for Child Advocates in Marion County.
This non-profit agency trains and supervises a court-appointed special advocate program, also called CASA, for abused and neglected children who come under court supervision through the intervention of child welfare authorities.
Meanwhile, in Porter County, the role of the guardian ad litem has evolved to serve a different child: one who is struggling within an unraveling marriage.
Why a guardian ad litem?
Over the course of nearly three years, Reed's now ex-husband, Thomas L. Morris, was granted custody of their two sons and a divorce -- in that order -- in Arizona.
Reed couldn't afford the fees quoted by local attorneys to handle the complex dissolution, custody and jurisdictional issues. Nor did legal aid services prove to be interested or adequate to undertake the case, according to Reed.
While Reed struggled with getting heard across state lines, Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas W. Webber, at the request of the Arizona court, ordered a home study by Porter County child welfare authorities.
He also appointed Lightfoot as guardian ad litem. Lightfoot, 63, previously served as a CASA in juvenile court but moved to family court as a guardian ad litem in recent years. She is the county's only guardian ad litem who is not an attorney and is highly regarded by county judges and magistrates for donating her services.
Attorneys are paid out of the county's legal services funds, though at a lower than standard rate. The county most recently approved a maximum rate of $75 an hour.
Reed says Lightfoot appeared at the door of her Portage trailer at 9 a.m. on a Saturday morning.
She acknowledges the trailer "was a mess."
"The living room was fairly trashed because boxes were in the living room to be sorted for spring cleaning," Reed says. "And I had four little kittens running around at the time.
"She said she wasn't here to judge my house. She was under court order to be spokesperson for the children.
"I told her about (Morris') police record and that he took the children. I told her without the children I'd have nothing to live for."
Morris, meanwhile, was living in a four-bedroom, tri-level home belonging to Jean Peck of Mesa.
A custody evaluation by Arizona authorities says Morris told them he had relocated to Mesa in April 1993 to seek housing and employment in anticipation of moving his family there.
Morris added he instead was informed by Reed that she was seeking a divorce.
He returned to Indiana to pick up the boys with Reed's approval. He and the boys resided with Peck beginning in July 1993, following Peck's separation from her husband.
A schoolteacher reported to the court that "there are definite tensions" between her sixth-grade pupil, his parents, and their new partners.
"Sharon is very good at weaving webs of untruth." - Thomas Morris.
Morris says the guardian ad litem's "main concern was the trailer was filthy, and Sharon would leave them alone there when she went to work until she felt like coming home."
The couple's children were 10 and 12 at the time of Morris' comments.
Morris expresses concerns about Reed's housekeeping and her boyfriend.
"There is a matter of a pistol put in their face."
He acknowledges he has a felony record, saying prosecutors dropped all the charges except criminal confinement. "That was 17 years and if they dig up my file from day one, that's everything except for some bogus checks with her name on it."
Court records indicate Morris was charged with rape, sexual deviate conduct and two counts of criminal confinement on March 14, 1978, for his attack on two women whose car had broken down in Highland.
In a plea agreement, Morris pleaded guilty to criminal confinement and was sentenced to two years in Westville Correctional Center.
He substantiates Reed's allegations that he answered "swinger magazine ads" and indulged in pornography, but says "90 percent were to fuel her fantasies."
"We can't understand why they can't be with their mother." Jerry Setters.
Thomas Morris' aunt, Jerry Setters, says she's written to the Arizona courts supporting her nephew's former wife.
"He's lived with us since he was 17. He just did whatever he wanted," Setters says about her nephew. "He could pull the wool over anybody's eyes, and that's what he's doing in Arizona.
"I did write to the (Arizona) commissioner stating (things) about Tom and his life here, and I guess it didn't do any good."
Setters says Reed "has always worked and taken care of the kids. Tommy didn't work that much."
It's unclear what information made its way to Porter County and Arizona authorities because reports by Lightfoot are considered confidential.
But one handwritten report to the Arizona court on Aug. 26, 1994, makes no mention of interviews with Reed, her family or employer.
The report says Morris loves his sons and feels Reed leaves them alone, and it relates hearsay accounts by Peck and her daughter, Mindy, about the boys.
The report concludes with Lightfoot's recommendation that the Peck home is the best placement for the boys, that Reed needs parenting classes and to move out of the trailer.
"Not only (are) the boys not safe here, they aren't safe in this park when no one's at home, no food cooked, dirty home. They are raising themselves. They will be in trouble soon," the report says.
When originally contacted about Reed's allegations nearly two years ago, Lightfoot said the trailer was not an issue. "I own Oak Tree Trailer Park. I've owned it for 20 some years and I have nothing against trailer parks.
"Are (children) fed, clothed, supervised? Those are the things I look for.
"My job is not the park, my job is the children," she said. "I don't make any determination of where they go or who has custody."
But it's known the Arizona court made its determination without a home study on Reed by local child welfare authorities as it ordered -- because none ever took place.
Who's speaking up for the children?
NWI Times
Mar 17, 1996
FAMILY COURT - A guardian ad litem may be appointed at the discretion of the court.
Training: None.
Supervision: None.
Cost: Attorneys - Maximum of $75/hour paid from county's legal services fund and charged to families for reimbursement. Non-attorneys - No cost because services are volunteered.
JUVENILE COURT - Indiana law mandates the appointment of a court-appointed special advocate (CASA) to each child who comes under court jurisdiction through the intervention of child welfare authorities.
Training: Minimum of 21 hours plus annual continuing education.
Supervision: A paid director supervises 60 volunteers.
Cost: CASAs volunteer their services.
The program is contracted to the Youth Services Bureau through juvenile court and supported by $66,000 in county funds and $7,000 in state funds. The statute allows - but the local court has not opted - to assess families up to $100.
Editor's Note: Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas W. Webber Sr. has asked sheriff's police to investigate complaints against a court volunteer, Beatrice Lightfoot, who serves as a guardian ad litem for children in family court. But Lightfoot says she's being unfairly targeted by families who don't understand her role. Here's a look at how children currently are being represented in Porter County.
As Kimberly Cole related the story of a marriage gone bitterly awry to members of the Porter County Council last month, she questioned the actions of a volunteer appointed by the court to protect the best interests of her child. The toddler, 2-year-old Andrew, is one of the 40 to 50 percent of the nation's children who have experienced their parents' divorce.
In addition to children like Andrew, who are affected by divorce issues, others are victims of child abuse and neglect. These numbers, too, are on the rise, in part because of laws mandating professionals to report the incidents to authorities.
Family specialists point to these factors as indicative of the growing need for legal assistance for children.
In Porter County, as in the rest of the state and the nation, children's legal needs increasingly are being met through a merging of public and private resources, which may have led to the maelstrom surrounding the court volunteer at the center of the controversy, Beatrice Lightfoot.
In recent years, Lightfoot, who formerly served as a Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) under juvenile court jurisdiction, has volunteered her services as a guardian ad litem under family court jurisdiction.
Federal and state law mandates the court to appoint an independent representative for each child who has been found by child welfare authorities to be abused or neglected. In Porter County, this role is fulfilled by the CASA program operated by the Youth Services Bureau under the jurisdiction of Juvenile Court Judge Raymond D. Kickbush.
The law is not as specific, however, on the appointment of a similar representative for children experiencing divorce and custody issues. In Porter County, a guardian ad litem (GAL) may be appointed by a family court judge or magistrate at his or her discretion to represent children caught in the web of severe divorce or custody issues.
Nationally, CASA volunteers come from all walks of life. GALs tend to be legally trained or, at minimum, to be CASA-trained volunteers. For example, some states have stringent requirements, such as permitting only attorneys to act as GALs.
In Porter County, interviews conducted with court officials indicate Lightfoot is the only non-attorney acting as a GAL.
Her mentor, Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas W. Webber Sr., and others laud Lightfoot's generosity and enthusiasm on behalf of the county's children.
Others, however, reflect a perspective that representing children is a special call that goes beyond the legal arena - while still demanding its discipline.
Still others point to the issue of cost: Lightfoot donates services for which attorneys get paid at a reduced rate.
Andrew's voice
In the Coles' case, Magistrate James Johnson believed their toddler, Andrew, required his own independent representative while the marriage unraveled - and beyond.
Their divorce is final. The war between the couple is not.
Besides Andrew, the Coles each had children by other marriages, but it's only Andrew who retains Lightfoot as his advocate.
To Kimberly Cole's bewilderment, Todd Cole recently was awarded custody of the toddler when Johnson finalized the Coles' divorce even though Kimberly Cole's attorney was out of the country.
In addition to a civil hearing before Johnson on that dispute, Kimberly Cole will face criminal charges before Porter Superior Court Judge Nancy Vaidik.
Prosecutors charged Kimberly Cole with battery after Todd Cole alleged she struck her step-son.
Most recently, Todd Cole sought a protective order against his former wife in LaPorte County. Instead, the court issued a mutual protective order after Porter County police appeared with Kimberly Cole, ready to rebut her former husband's contentions.
As attorneys for both parents maneuver through the courts, Andrew's interests are to be advocated and protected by his own representative, Beatrice Lightfoot.
What GALs say
Lightfoot's role is perhaps best described in a child's voice.
In an article published in "The Indiana Lawyer," Kickbush relates, in describing what a CASA does, a child once told his CASA , "A CASA does the judge's homework."
But unlike that of rigidly trained and supervised CASA volunteers, the more independent approach taken by the GAL may take many forms, from merely information-gathering to doing all the things an attorney does to represent a client.
"(A GAL) doesn't have to be an attorney," Lake County Circuit Court Magistrate Christina Miller says, "but should be, so all parties are playing by the same rules.
"Indiana has a void in the law," Miller says. "There should be more guidance."
Miller says a GAL has two roles: to advocate and to protect.
For a guardian ad litem to be effective "requires some legal talent," Miller says.
Although not meant to replace the GAL or CASA systems, Miller says yet another approach is being considered by Lake County. It's the establishment of a Domestic Relations Bureau within the county government in which social and legal services for families will be housed "under one roof."
"It helps Mom and Dad to be as non-combative as possible, and that helps the child," Miller says.
But local family law attorneys who have served as GALs, such as Mark Coleman of Valparaiso, say the guardian ad litem system in Porter County works, and the state law doesn't need much tinkering.
"I think more guidelines would be counterproductive," says Coleman. "You'd have GALs using them as a checklist and not getting into things that should be done.
"Children would be better served if just more money were put into these services," Coleman says about the judges' struggles with providing children their own voice in court.
Agency's funds in danger
NWI Times
Sep 9, 1996
VALPARAISO - For 15 years, Family House has provided a neutral ground for children whose families have been torn apart by divorce.
There, children whose parents are divorced or separated can visit with the non-custodial parent in a home-like setting.
Porter County has traditionally funded Family House, and its judges refer children whose parents need to re-establish healthy parental visitation to the center, located in Valparaiso.
But some judges disagree on whether Family House should automatically receive the county's children visitation services funding next year.
Two judges propose the money be put into a general court budget next year. Then the majority of judges could decide whether the funds should go to Family House or a similar center.
"I want it understood that this isn't because somebody's mad at Family House," Porter Superior Court Judge Roger Bradford said. "It's about what's best for the children of divorce. We're doing it for the benefit of the kids."
The County Council will decide on the judges' request tonight during final hearings on next year's county budget.
In the meantime, the money remains part of the county's circuit court budget. Children served by Family House are typically referred by the county's divorce or juvenile courts.
Funding for Family House usually goes under the circuit court budget. The majority of children who frequent the center are in foster care; Porter Circuit Court Judge Raymond Kickbush refers them there.
He prefers Family House because the center is set up like a home.
"When I yank kids out of houses and take kids away from their parents, my God, that's traumatic," Kickbush said. "They need a comfortable setting for visits."
Kickbush hadn't heard his colleagues were in favor of switching the children's visitation services money to another fund until after Wednesday's council meeting.
He explained that he was on vacation when county judges held a meeting on next year's budget requests, when the issue was discussed.
The problem, Bradford said, is that Family House has limited weekend hours.
The center is open by appointment-only on Saturdays and is closed Sundays.
In some cases where divorced parents need a neutral place to exchange their children on weekends for court-ordered visitation, he believes the center's hours make it difficult for them to rely on Family House for help.
"There are unfortunately a large number of people who can't exchange their kids without arguing with each other," he said.
It's the main reason he and Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber aren't content with the center.
They presented their concerns to the County Council last Wednesday.
The majority of Family House's funding comes from the county.
Ruth Massman, director for Family House, said the center is willing to accommodate families on Sundays by appointment. "Quite frankly, we haven't had a demand for that," she said.
Family House is open a minimum of 43 hours a week, Massman said. Its regular hours run from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesdays through Thursdays and from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Fridays.
Massman was not at Wednesday's council meeting when Bradford and Webber made their proposal and could not comment on it.
By leaving the money in the circuit court budget, Bradford explained to the council, judges who deal with divorce cases have no say over where money for children's visitation services should go.
"We'd like all six judges' input," he said.
The judges haven't decided where they'd like to see the money go. Unless the County Council approves the request from Webber and Bradford, it's a moot point, he said.
"We wanted clarification as to whether it would be for Family House or whether they would leave it open," County Council member Karen Martin explained.
Martin said she needed more information about the availability of Family House before she could make a decision.
Family House isn't the only children's visitation center that has vied for county dollars.
Beatrice Lightfoot, who serves as a court-appointed guardian ad litem in child custody disputes, opened the Children/Parent Center in Chesterton. Her center also provides a place for children to visit with non-custodial parents.
Last spring, she requested county funds for her center, which has longer hours than Family House.
Lightfoot's request that the county reimburse her for representing children in rancorous divorce cases attracted emotional protests from parents and other child advocates who insist Lightfoot is unfit to represent children or operate her Children/Parent Center in Chesterton.
The council grilled center director Karen Klein about the need for Lightfoot's services when the county is already paying for other child advocates and subsidizing Family House for supervised visitation by non-custodial parents.
Council members told the center director last February that no appropriation for Lightfoot would be considered unless the county judges request funding as part of the court system's budget.
Kickbush's concern with giving money to Children/Parent Center is that it hasn't been open long enough to prove itself in the way Family House has. "I don't know the operation of that place," he said. "I applaud the person who set it up, but giving money is another thing.
"Family House has been around for more than 15 years. It has a board of directors. It's stable."
Bradford said if the council approves his request, he doesn't envision that the judges would split the money - $33,400 - among more than one center.
"I'm not sure that's desirable," he said.
If county funds are moved to the general court budget, he anticipates the judges would discuss what they would like from a child visitation services program, then meet with existing Porter County centers before making a decision.
"Don't make any presumption that we're getting rid of Family House," he said.
"We're not happy with them. But not being happy with them doesn't mean this can't be resolved. It doesn't mean they can't readjust their hours to give us what we need."
Family House clinches funding for 1997
NWI Times
Sep 10, 1996
What's next
Porter County Council members have until Friday to balance an $18.2 million budget. They've already cut more than $3.8 million from county departments' 1997 budget requests; by mid-Monday evening, they had less than $195,000 in cuts left to find. Budget hearings continue at 4:30 p.m. today in the County Administration Building.
VALPARAISO - A child visitation center that two Porter County judges say isn't meeting the needs of children from divorced families will continue receiving county funds.
The County Council agreed Monday that the $33,400 it has traditionally allocated to Family House in Valparaiso should automatically get the money next year.
Porter Superior Court judges Thomas Webber and Roger Bradford had advocated putting the Family House money into a general court fund next year.
Then, the majority of judges would decide whether the money would go to Family House, which they say doesn't have enough weekend hours to accommodate divorced families.
"We'd like to have the right to go to Family House and say, 'Meet our needs, please,' " Webber said. "We do need a visitation service we can count on."
But Ruth Massmann, director for Family House, said judges had never told the center they were unhappy with its weekend schedule. The center is open by appointment-only on Saturdays and Sundays.
"We can't provide a service that no one has told us they need," Massmann said.
"It's working. And we feel if it's not broke, don't fix it."
County Council members agreed.
Funding for Family House has been part of the county's circuit court budget since 1992.
Council members feared that by putting the Family House money into a fund called "children's visitation services" in next year's general court budget, the money could be used to finance more than one center.
"Unless there's a better plan ... I personally say leave it as Family House in the circuit court budget," Council member Karen Martin said.
Council Vice-President Mike Bucko agreed the judges' concerns were important.
But, he said, "It seems to me that (Family House) has been working.
"If you have a problem, work together," he urged Judge Webber.
The council's decision came as a relief to Family House's board of directors, many of whom showed up to hear debate on the center's county funding. Children served by Family House are typically referred by the county's divorce or juvenile courts.
The majority of children who frequent the center are in foster care; Porter Circuit Court Judge Raymond Kickbush refers them there.
Kickbush prefers Family House because the center is set up like a home.
But Webber said the center's limited weekend hours make it difficult for divorced parents who cannot exchange their children for weekend visits without argument to rely on Family House as neutral territory.
"One real problem that started about a year-and-a-half ago was the issue of family exchange," Webber explained to the council. "We were using the police departments around the county (for exchanges). Kids were sitting in the lobby, waiting to be picked up."
But after a disturbance occurred inside a Portage jail while children were waiting to be exchanged, divorced parents no longer had that option, Webber said.
He suggested the money be allocated to a children's visitation service fund so that judges could negotiate with Family House for better weekend hours.
Massmann said the center would be willing to accommodate family exchanges, but divorced parents would need to make appointments for this service, just as they make appointments for visits during the week.
"We can't just have people coming in and out," she said.
Webber told the council that the majority of the county's six judges favored putting the money into the general court budget. Bradford argued in favor of the change last week; Porter Superior Court Judge Nancy Vaidik also supported the proposal Monday night.
But Porter Superior Court Judge Mary Harper told the council she believed there wasn't a majority consensus among the judges.
"I would say it's pretty well evenly divided," she said.
"We have a lot of things on our table right now. To say, 'Let's throw Family House on the table and have the six of us do that,' I think, is too much."
Criticisms prompt new court rules
NWI Times
Nov 3, 1996
VALPARAISO - Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber helped his court-appointed guardian ad litem, Beatrice Lightfoot, found a children's visitation center.
Incorporation documents filed Oct. 16, 1995 show Webber, Lightfoot and Steven Krieger, now of Michigan, are co-incorporators of the Children-Parent Center in Chesterton, a nonprofit corporation to which Webber in his official judicial duties approves families for supervised visitation, transfers between divorcing parents, and parenting classes.
An annual report received by the state Sept. 24, 1996, names Lightfoot president and Krieger secretary. Webber's name appears as one of nine board members.
On Friday, in a written response to inquiries by The Times, Webber wrote he resigned from the board at its first board meeting. He did not give the date of the meeting.
Lightfoot, the widow of a Portage developer, has been criticized by a citizens' group composed of child advocates and parents led by Helen Boothe of Dune Acres. The group questioned Lightfoot's neutrality and opposed Lightfoot's seeking Porter County dollars to help fund the venture, which they said duplicates services offered by Valparaiso's Family House.
Lightfoot receives no payment for her guardian ad litem services, but has sought reimbursement for the center's visitation services from a monthly stipend earmarked for Family House.
Residents of Lake and LaPorte counties can be charged $30 an hour for supervised visitation and up to $70 for three hours and $20 each additional hour. However, the fees can be adjusted, according to Karen Klein, services manager for Children/Parent Center.
As in Porter and Lake counties, LaPorte county officials say visitation services are billed directly to parents by the agency to which they're referred. A spokeswoman for the Lake County Auditor's office said the county has no record of payments to the Children/Parent Center nor does the office of the court administrator for Lake County Circuit Court.
Klein put the center's visitation caseload in October at 32 Porter County families to Family House's 16. She referred inquiries about Lake and LaPorte county statistics to Lightfoot.
Klein said Lightfoot's caseload as guardian ad litem was approximately 75.
It's unclear how many are active.
Lightfoot has declined requests for an interview. Krieger did not return telephone calls. Webber declined interview requests, but responded to questions from The Times in a four-page narrative.
In the narrative, Webber wrote he knew and respected Lightfoot for her concern for children and agreed to serve as an incorporator because he believed the Children/Parent Center was needed.
The sheriff's investigation
In February, responding to criticism of Lightfoot's performance as a guardian ad litem, Webber requested an investigation by the Porter County Sheriff's Department.
According to Sheriff Larry Dembinski, the investigation was assigned to detective Sgt. Joey Larr by his captain, William Woods, after a conversation between Dembinski and Webber.
Larr submitted his findings to Webber in a report dated June 28. The four-page sheriff's report obtained by The Times concluded Lightfoot made minor errors but did not directly or intentionally commit any wrongdoing.
The report also called for mandatory and expanded training for guardians ad litem and an increase in funding to avoid "their overuse and eventual burnout."
At the time he requested the investigation, Webber said the allegations "went beyond sour grapes."
Webber said he wanted the sheriff to investigate the complaints because of their legal and ethical nature.
Questions about Lightfoot's performance came to the attention of all six of the county's judges through Boothe's intercession.
Boothe's hand-carried letter informed the judges she had obtained information she believed was critical of Lightfoot's performance. The information came to her through "friend of friends over a period of 18 months."
Boothe submitted to the judges a 12-point statement outlining alleged misconduct by Lightfoot, such as presenting to the court false information and "an exaggerated/distorted account of reality."
Boothe also gave the judges a petition she said was signed by at least 35 individuals who opposed funding Children/Parent Center as a duplication of services and questioned the neutrality of Lightfoot referring her own cases to the center.
At the time, Lightfoot said she believed the criticism came from parents who had misdirected their anger at losing custody of their children.
Within days of Webber's calling for the investigation, one of the parents, Kimberly Cole of Chesterton, accompanied by Boothe, went public at a meeting of the Porter County Council, which was hearing a request for funding of the Children/Parent Center.
During a lengthy presentation to the council, Cole questioned whether Lightfoot abused her power.
"Over and over again she has expressed that she has influence over the judicial system," Cole told the council at the time.
Also at the time, Cole was facing two felony battery charges in connection with her ex-husband's allegations she had struck his son by a former marriage.
In May, prosecutors agreed to dismiss the charges on the condition there were no related allegations for one year.
Cole became one of the five parents interviewed by Larr during the sheriff's investigation.
"They were all of the strong opinion that Lightfoot did not accurately represent them throughout the court proceedings," Larr wrote in his report.
"They all felt Lightfoot had a tendency to take one side of the story, and never waiver or permit an argument of their opinions."
The parents conveyed "an adamant dislike of ... the court-appointed power and discretion granted Lightfoot," according to the report. They also believed Lightfoot had not been properly trained and felt her reports were confusing and not understandable.
When pressed, however, none of the five could give a specific occasion when Lightfoot had deliberately presented false information, according to Larr's report.
They protested Lightfoot's "private conversations with the judge or magistrate during court and out of earshot of their attorneys," Larr reported.
In researching Lightfoot's reports to the court, Larr said he found minor errors tending to be grammatical or the mistaking of a person's name.
The report said there were occasions when further work by Lightfoot "may have solved a problem or at least given the witness a sense of being equally represented."
Larr described Lightfoot as "a motivated, strongly opinionated, compassionate individual" whose opinions are based on her training as a court-appointed special advocate and "what she feels is best for the children and the parents she is assigned to assist."
Larr found Lightfoot is one of approximately nine county guardians ad litem and the only one who is not an attorney.
All the attorneys are paid out of the court budget, while Lightfoot's services are free, according to Larr. Consequently, Lightfoot received 10 to 12 cases a year versus two or three assigned the attorneys, according to the report.
A review of available court records by The Times confirms Lightfoot is the lone non-attorney and has the greatest number of cases. Out of 33 guardian ad litem appointments made in Webber's court since 1994, Lightfoot received 23.
Larr recommended an expansion of training and funds for guardians ad litem, but made no mention of the $60,000 donated in 1992 by Lightfoot to the court for the establishment of a guardian ad litem program, which has gone unused and earned more than $8,000 in interest according to auditor's records.
Larr declined comment on the investigation, but Woods said Webber told the matter came up at a judges' meeting and the decision was made to ask the department to investigate any foundation to the complaints against Lightfoot.
"It was simply a matter of talking to people who made the complaints to see exactly what the complaints were, and the matter was referred back to the judge," said Woods, Larr's captain.
Woods said the issue was not criminal in nature, and the investigation's results were left to the judges to follow up. He received no follow-up requests, he said.
Several of the involved parents question the thoroughness of the investigation.
"It was a joke," Cole said. "(Larr) called me on the phone and asked me a couple of questions (such as) could I specifically poinpoint anything she lied about in court. I basically believe it was a sweep-under-the-rug type of investigation."
David Stout of Valparaiso said he recalled only one telephone conversation with Larr. "I don't believe it was really checked into."
Another parent went to see Larr at his office. They talked for 30 to 45 minutes, said Betty Wonch of Merrillville.
"There was no investigation," Wonch said. "(Larr) was so eager to get in our file and then he didn't bother to go get it."
"If (parents) have anything to say in criticism of our investigation, they should take it up with the judge who ordered it," Woods said.
"Police catch criminals, they're not a political tool," Woods said, adding he believed Boothe was playing politics and the judiciary was doing everything it could to be fair and to correct problems with guardian ad litem services.
"I consider Mrs. Lightfoot to be qualified to serve as a GAL (guardian ad litem). She had completed the required State of Indiana training and has annually updated the training. Further, she has completed the training to become an instructor of CASA/GAL training. She is a mother and grandmother, is a successful businesswoman and has considerable life experiences. From my observation, she has a sincere concern for children and seeing to their best interests nor is she influenced by political pressure or scurilous, unfounded and unsupported accusations," Webber wrote in his response.
Several judges considered the report a vindication of Lightfoot, and all agreed guardian ad litem services needed improvement.
Circuit Court Judge Raymond Kickbush and officials from the Youth Service Bureau, who operate the CASA (court-appointed special advocate) program in Porter County, have confirmed Lightfoot took the CASA training some years ago.
Kickbush said Lightfoot has not been associated with the CASA program in at least three or four years.
The extent of Lightfoot's training beyond the county's CASA program could not be verified. She has declined requests to be interviewed.
"I'm not sure this investigation was focused in a way that truly addresses the guardian ad litem issues," Judge Harper said at the time. "I don't want to say 'program' because we don't really have one."
Harper also said preliminary draft of a program proposal was being prepared and needed to be followed up by the judges. The new rules were issued Oct. 29.
"I'm glad (Larr) found no wrongdoing whatsoever as was alleged, and we had already been planning to get some specific training for all guardians at litem, be they attorneys or not," Judge Bradford said.
"There's nothing to prevent me from appointing Mrs. Lightfoot as a guardian ad litem," he said.
"I've seen the sheriff's police report and even though nothing appeared to be improper, the court as a whole thinks we need guidelines for the appointment of guardians ad litem," Judge Vaidik said on commenting on the sheriff's report.
"I'm very pleased that the report indicated no indiscretion in the cases involved," said Thode at the time, adding he believed the origin of the problem was legislative. "I do think we need to do more with the guardian ad litem program, and we're headed in that direction."
Judge Kickbush declined comment in reference to the results of the investigation, saying he did not expect to appoint Lightfoot to his court nor use the center she founded. Kickbush's child welfare cases are assigned to a court-appointed special advocate program operated by the Youth Service Bureau. Contributions to the court
Other questions by Lightfoot's critics involve her contributions to the campaigns of four of the county's six judges and a current judicial candidate.
Critics point to the campaign contributions and other donations to the court, such as courthouse metal detectors, as support for their allegations about the influence Lightfoot allegedly has with the courts.
Cole's ex-husband, Todd Cole of Michigan City, recently exercised his option to have their son, Andrew, picked up for his visits with his mother at Children/Parent Center, a move Kimberly Cole protested.
"I don't think it's appropriate since I testified in open court and in public (Lightfoot's) not adequately qualified," Kimberly Cole said.
Cole added she feared Lightfoot's influence. "(Lightfoot's) said she has enough authority she can go to the magistrate if I don't do what she wants."
Most recently, the court approved a new magistrate, guardian ad litem and visitation center in the Cole case.
Campaign disclosure forms show Lightfoot has been the largest individual contributor, by a wide margin, to the campaigns of Webber and Porter Superior Court Judge Nancy Vaidik, both Democrats, and Porter Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Thode, a Republican.
Webber received $2,000 from Lightfoot for his 1994 run. In 1990, Lightfoot's $1,000 contribution was matched only by Charles Graddick of Gary.
In 1994, Thode's committee reported receiving $3,000 from Lightfoot and $200 from Lightfoot's son, Leif.
Vaidik, meanwhile, received a total of $1,100 from Lightfoot in 1992 and $500 for her 1996 primary.
Lightfoot made a $2,000 contribution to the recent primary campaign of Porter Superior Court Judge Roger Bradford.
There are no recent records showing contributions to retiring Republican Judge Raymond Kickbush or to Republican Porter Superior Court Judge Mary Harper, currently a Circuit Court candidate.
Disclosure forms for her Democratic opponent, Valparaiso attorney Hugo Martz show he has received $2,000 from Lightfoot. "With all contributions, it's made very clear that there are no strings attached," Martz said recently.
"Mrs. Lightfoot contributed to my campaign," Webber wrote. "I do not consider it a conflict of interest that anyone with the CPC (Children/Parent Center) contributed to my campaign," Webber continued. "A great many people contributed to my campaign."
Judges Bradford, Thode and Vaidik have said Lightfoot has not used campaign contributions to influence them.
While Lightfoot has declined to discuss her political contributions, former Porter County Councilman Jack Clem, also a former Portage City Councilman and acquaintance of Lightfoot's, said Lightfoot, the widow of an early Portage developer, never has been active politically.
"She goes to the candidates she wants," Clem said. "There's not a lot of people in either party who really know her," Clem said.
THE NEW RULES
Until jointly filing with the Porter County Clerk a "Guardians Ad Litem Local Rule" on Oct. 29, the six judges appeared divided on the issues surrounding Lightfoot and the center.
The three-page document establishes guidelines for the appointment, qualifications, duties, administration and implementation of guardian ad litem services.
*Appointment of guardians ad litem:
The new court rule includes the naming by the court of a three-person panel from the a list of approved guardians ad litem maintained by the court administrator.
In successive turns, the court administrator will assign three names to a panel until the entire list has been named to a panel.
Once the entire list has been named to panels, the names will be reshuffled, the list recreated and new panels named.
In the event the court determines that a conflict of interest exists with a panel member, the court administrator will appoint the next name to the list.
Within set time periods, each party will strike a name and the remaining guardian ad litem will be court-appointed.
*Qualifications:
Guardians ad litem will be an attorney or non-attorney volunteer who has completed a court-approved training program that is required for a court-appointed special advocate.
Non-attorneys will complete six hours of training. Attorneys will complete 12 hours of training. Both must complete three hours of annual training, submit to a criminal records check and may be removed from the list by the court.
*Administration:
The names of the next available guardian ad litem will remain confidential until a panel has been selected.
The court administrator will maintain files on each guardian ad litem that include: name, address, telephone, qualifications, brief personal history, whether the person is an attorney, and any additional information the guardian ad litem provides.
*Fees:
Guardians ad litem will receive no compensation, but may be entitled to expenses upon approval of the court.
The court will assess a user fee in each case.
An attorney appointed to assist the guardian ad litem, however, will be compensated.
The new court rule, however, does not address any issues surrounding the selection of Children/Parent Center or Family House.
"All the judges have the interest of the children at heart, but see things from slightly different angles, although with a common goal," Harper said in September after reluctantly going public with her misgivings about the potential of shifting funds from Family House to Children/Parent Center .
Harper urged the Porter County Council to leave things as they are after several judges asked the council to have more than $33,000 earmarked for children's visitation services deposited into the general court budget over which all the judges would have control.
The money for years has been in the circuit court budget of Judge Raymond Kickbush, who used it to fund Family House.
The council heeded Harper. "I'm really pleased with the actions the council took. "It's fair and in the best interest of the children," she said at the time.
Harper didn't think the sheriff's investigation "focused on what I know is there. There is room for a great deal of improvement."
Harper said one aspect that would be a focus of a program would be qualifications. "People at Family House are all degreed in nursing or social work or related fields," Harper said. "That would certainly merit consideration in the potential for the guardian ad litem situation."
Klein, manager at Children/Parent Center and the only staff member, said she has a high school education buttressed by 32 years of life and work experiences. She was executive vice president of three businesses belonging to Dr. Philip Kellar in Merrillville, Highland and Hobart. The last of Kellar's medical centers closed in 1992, said Klein, who also did Kellar's property management.
She began working for Family House in October 1993 as office manager and visit supervisor, until joining Children/Parent Center in October 1995.
Klein said she was trained on-site at Family House, doing its bookkeeping and supervising 40 percent of the visitation, and served as interim director for three months while the facility searched for a new director.
She said no therapy is done at either facility. As with Family House, Klein sits with families during their visits, making sure "everyone relates to each other appropriately."
Judges try to close loophole
NWI Times
Nov 4, 1996
VALPARAISO - Porter County judges are moving to fine-tune the new program for guardians ad litem.
A three-page document establishes guidelines for the appointment, qualifications, duties, administration and implementation of guardian ad litem services.
Among them is the provision that guardians ad litem will receive no compensation, except for expenses subject to court approval.
Porter Circuit Court Judge Raymond Kickbush said the court is working to prevent losing attorneys who may be disenchanted now that they will be asked to provide the service without pay.
Kickbush will seek a change in state court rules that will permit attorneys to earn continuing education credit by acting as a guardian ad litem on a pro bono basis.
Attorneys currently are required to earn 36 hours of continuing education credit every three years.
"What better way for younger lawyers to gain experience than get involved in divorce proceedings and save the counties money?" Kickbush said.
"Unless incentives are there, we're going to lose a lot of lawyers," Kickbush said about the guidelines the court adopted in establishing a guardian ad litem program.
Nevertheless Kickbush said the change "is a good plan for the community in which we live."
"Once we are made aware that a need exists, (the community) will respond," Kickbush said. "I have proof in the CASA (court-appointed special advocate) program."
The CASA program is composed of some 60 volunteers who work with abused and neglected children who come under court jurisdiction. The program is operated by the Youth Service Bureau.
In divorce court, however, only Beatrice Lightfoot of Burns Harbor, a non-attorney, volunteers her services.
Until the county's judges signed a new court rule last week, attorneys were paid out of a court budget if parents were not able to pay for their services.
Even so, there appeared to be less than a dozen attorneys willing to perform the service at an hourly rate of $75 an hour.
If the state rule is approved, Porter Superior Court Judge Nancy Vaidik said the judges are considering a 12-hour continuing education program already in existence in Lake County to entice more attorneys to volunteer.
In considering the local rule approved last week, Vaidik said the judges considered various ways to compensate both attorney and non-attorney guardians ad litem.
A volunteer system was the only plan that seemed both fair to families and economical to the county, according to Vaidik.
With attorneys and non-attorneys randomly named to three-person panels from which each parent may strike a name, it would amount to "the luck of the draw if a person would be paid," according to Vaidik.
"We don't have enough money in the budget to pay for the lawyers' services every time," Vaidik said.
"We ended up with this," she said. "We are worried we might not get attorneys to volunteer for free, so we're talking about building in incentives."
Family House disputes judge
NWI Times
Nov 5, 1996
VALPARAISO - Within a month of the opening of the Children/Parent Center, court-appointed guardian ad litem Beatrice Lightfoot attempted to transfer at least four Family House clients to the center she co-founded with Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber.
Sharon Caywood, Family House's board president, said it is that action that led her to ask for a meeting with Webber in November 1995, not a dispute about Family House's hours as portrayed in Webber's public account published Sunday in The Times.
"I have been shocked and very disappointed that Judge Webber had been on the board of Children/Parent Center (CPC) and instrumental in helping them set up a 501C3 (nonprofit organization)," Caywood said Monday after learning of the incorporation by Webber and Lightfoot.
On Monday, Caywood disputed Webber's statement about last fall's meetings with Family House.
Caywood said at least four confused families called Family House last fall, saying they had been transferred to Children/Parent Center by Lightfoot. "They did not want to leave," Caywood said.
Caywood said she called a meeting with Webber during which she asked Webber if he planned to put Family House out of business.
Caywood said Family House was raising funds at the time in order to relocate.
Caywood said she told the judge, "If that's your plan, you need to tell us now."
"There was no answer (from Webber)," Caywood said.
Ultimately two of the families were appointed a guardian ad litem, which was Lightfoot, who then referred them to her own center, according to Caywood.
Ruth Massmann, Family House executive director, said she recalled that of the remaining two cases, one was dismissed and one stayed with Family House.
On Monday, Webber said he authorized Lightfoot to transfer any cases she felt needed to be transferred.
A letter by Webber to Lightfoot dated Oct. 30, 1995 confirms Webber authorized Lightfoot "to use the facility which will best serve the needs of the children and parents."
Caywood said the meeting with Webber followed a meeting Oct. 23, 1995, which was called by Porter Circuit Court Judge Raymond Kickbush, who was concerned about duplication of services.
At that meeting, Caywood said Kickbush and Webber asked Lightfoot how she expected to be paid. Lightfoot replied she was going to bill the county. Both judges explained to Lightfoot that they had a budget allocated only for Family House.
Nevertheless, Family House received several months of billing for clients who were being seen at CPC, Caywood said.
Webber wrote in his response to inquiries from The Times: "Judge Kickbush was requested to arrange a meeting with Family House board of directors. Subsequently, a meeting was held in Judge Kickbush's jury room with the Family House board of directors, their executive director and those interested members of the judiciary. Family House was requested to either change or increase the hours of operation to accommodate the exchange of children on a more flexible schedule. Family House agreed to be a place for the exchanging of children but declined to change or increase their hours of operation to accommodate the dates and times set forth in the court's standard visitation order. A second meeting was held in my office with members of the board of directors of Family House where it was again stressed that a location was needed for parents to exchange children. Family House again indicated that a change of hours of operation was impossible."
"At neither meeting were our hours the main issue or main topic," Caywood said. "We will never turn a family away. Needs are always met at Family House."
On Monday, Webber said the underlying purposes to both meetings were as he outlined in his letter to The Times. "The Family House people were discussing their concerns, and I was discussing my concerns."
County guardian ad litem program stalled by rule
NWI Times
Nov 24, 1996
VALPARAISO - Because the new court rule governing the appointment of guardians ad litem is limited to divorce cases, Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber unilaterally could - and did - appoint a guardian ad litem to a guardianship case.
Webber said his appointment of non-attorney Beatrice Lightfoot of Burns Harbor was made with the agreement of the attorneys involved in the case.
In addition, all of the attorneys who had been serving as guardians ad litem have resigned, Webber said Thursday afternoon, and the only guardian ad litem left in the system is Lightfoot.
"The attorneys agreed, and even if they hadn't, the only person I had to appoint was Bea Lightfoot," Webber said.
Valparaiso attorney Gregory Hagan, who represents one of the parties in the guardianship case, said he has not had an opportunity to read the rule, which sets out training, qualification and appointment procedures for guardians ad litem in divorce cases.
"(Judge Webber) asked if I had any objection," Hagan said. Hagan told the judge he had none.
"(Lightfoot's) the perfect person to look at the particular matter in this case," Hagan said.
Still, on Oct. 29, following public criticism of Lightfoot's performance, the six Porter County judges approved their new court rule, the first since 1989.
Besides establishing requirements for guardians ad litem, the court rule prevented judges from making unilateral appointments in divorce cases. The rules call for the court to name a three-person panel from a list of approved guardians ad litem; each party in the divorce case will strike a name from the list and the remaining person will be appointed to the case.
Yet on Nov. 7, nine days after the judges adopted the court rule, Webber appointed a guardian ad litem to a guardianship case, which is not covered by the new requirements.
Thus questions regarding the level of such services to children overall remain.
Also, as the judges feared, the availability of local attorneys to serve as guardians ad litem appears to have suffered as a result of the new rule.
Several contacted by The Times on Friday indicated they anticipated not doing as many cases, if any, primarily because of the elimination of the $75 an hour the county had authorized to pay them for their services.
Also troublesome to some attorneys was the 12-hour training requirement even though the judges hoped to offer free continuing education credits.
As a result, the judges amended the rule Thursday to restore some payment and exempt from the training requirement those attorneys who have served as a guardian ad litem in at least one case in 1995 and 1996.
Porter Circuit Court Judge Raymond Kickbush, the court's presiding judge, said he will limit his control over the issue to seeking the rapid approval of a state rule that will grant free, on-going continuing education credit to attorneys willing to provide the service.
Kickbush said the judges may - and do - act according to majority decision.
The law also provides that the court "shall designate one of the judges as presiding judge and fix the time he shall preside, and said judge shall be responsible for the operation and conduct of the court and for seeing that said court shall efficiently and judicially operate."
Since the judges did not vote on a presiding judge, the position goes to the judge with the most seniority, which is Kickbush, who has been critical of the use of a guardian ad litem in divorce cases.
Kickbush, also the juvenile court judge, is mandated by federal law to appoint a court-appointed special advocate to represent abused and neglected children.
No such federal mandate, however, exists for the appointment of guardians ad litem in divorce cases, which generally are approved by Porter Superior Judges Thomas Webber and Roger Bradford.
Kickbush said while he's not saying he has no concerns about Lightfoot's significant campaign contributions to the court, the judges' practice has been to not interfere in each other's courts.
"We've always operated the court with all six of us as a sort of knights-of-the-roundtable with no one (judge) asserting dominance over the others," Kickbush said. "Everyone operates their court as they see fit. We seldom have any disagreement. It works well."
Taking the lead in seeking the continuing education requirement, as the other judges asked, is his swan song, said Kickbush, who is leaving the bench after nearly 20 years of service.
"I'm planting a seed," Kickbush said, conceding he's aware the new court rule offers no guarantee of improved services nor a remedy to families who believe their cases may have been compromised by the relationship between Webber and Lightfoot.
Webber co-founded with Lightfoot a children's visitation center to which he approves divorce cases under his jurisdiction.
Nationally, appointing a guardian ad litem to represent a child in a troubled family has become popular with the judiciary in recent years as families have been splintering in response to changing cultural and social conditions.
Indiana Code gives powers to a guardian ad litem that surprised even the attorneys attending a two-part continuing education workshop recently held in Crown Point.
The workshop was sponsored by the Lake County Bar Association, Southlake Center for Mental Health and the Valparaiso University School of Law. It offered attorneys 12 hours of free continuing education training in exchange for their agreement to act as a guardian ad litem without charge.
"It's an extremely powerful tool," said Merrillville attorney Don Levinson about the role. "One thing I didn't know at all is that a guardian ad litem has the right to terminate parental rights, and no other body has that power other than the welfare department and possibly the prosecutor's office."
For attorneys who accept the role, Levinson said, the issue can contain a whole array of ethical questions, such as lawyer-client privilege.
"If a child comes to me and says, 'I hate Mommy and want to go live with Daddy, that's lawyer-client privilege for an attorney." But as a guardian ad litem, he could be made to testify to that effect.
Despite such troublesome questions, according to Levinson, the approximately 30 attorneys attending the workshop found the prospect of helping children very appealing.
"These were not just lawyers going for free continuing education credit," Levinson said. "They saw the service to society."
Judge Kickbush must act
NWI Times
Nov 25, 1996
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/judge-kickbush-must-act/article_9619570c-ec72-5197-8fafe446dd0be85c.html
The issue: The new court rules regarding guardian ad litem appointments are limited to divorce cases.
Our opinion: Judge Kickbush needs to exercise his authority as presiding judge and resolve these moral and ethical issues.
The new Porter County court rule that was supposedly adopted to address, and restrict, unilateral guardian ad litem appointments has its limitations.
The rule limits its guidelines to only divorce cases.
As a result, Judge Thomas Webber is free to appoint his co-incorporator of the Children/Parent Center and his campaign's top financial contributor as a guardian ad litem in cases other than divorces. And he has.
About a week after the new rule was adopted, Judge Webber appointed Beatrice Lightfoot of Burns Harbor as guardian ad litem in a guardianship case where there is no divorce.
When the new rules were announced we were led to believe the rule would eliminate any appearance of a conflict of interest because the parties involved would be able to select a GAL from a list of three proposed.
Clearly, it was the intent of the rule to prevent judges' unilateral appointments of guardians ad litem. Just as clearly, it hasn't.
Who knows whether this was an oversight by the judges or intentional?
What we do know, however, is that it's time to go back to the drawing board and amend the rule by eliminating the divorce case restriction.
Why? Because we believe all guardian ad litem parties should have the same rights and protections, not just those going through a divorce.
And where is the court's leadership? It appears to be lacking.
Recently, Judge Raymond Kickbush said he had no power or authority to address any questionable operation or conduct in the Porter County Courts. He said, basically, the judges all run their own courtrooms and he has nothing to say about how they conduct their business.
So who's in charge of the courts?
Indiana law specifically directs the Porter County Court judges to either select a presiding judge or, in the absence of that action, the judge with seniority automatically becomes the presiding judge.
The six Porter County judges haven't selected a presiding judge. So the senior judge - Raymond Kickbush - is the presiding judge.
He knows Indiana law regarding the court system, and he should know it's his job to ensure the proper operation and conduct of the court and its judges.
Yet despite his attempts to distance himself from the controversy in Porter County's courts, the fact is he can and should be the leading force behind resolving those issues.
It is understandable that Kickbush, who is retiring at the end of this year, would want to end his otherwise relatively distinguished career of public service without handling a controversy in the courts.
He has attempted to rationalize his lack of leadership, saying Porter County's courts operate by a consensus of the judges.
That sounds benevolent, but it really is unconscionable to think Kickbush, a man of the law, would elect to ignore this mess in our courts.
Clearly, court operation and conduct questions are his responsibility as the presiding judge.
With little time remaining on his term, Judge Kickbush should show the leadership skills he's displayed in the past. He must attempt to resolve the critical moral and ethical issues facing the courts.
In doing so, he will assure his legacy remains intact as a man who enforces the law equally.
Lightfoot breaks silence on ties to court
NWI Times
Nov 26, 1996
BURNS HARBOR - Guardian ad litem Beatrice Lightfoot of Burns Harbor responded Monday to news articles that chronicled her relationship to the courts that appoint her.
In a letter to the editor submitted to The Times and other area newspapers, Lightfoot departed from the silence she has maintained since complaints of her performance surfaced at a February meeting of the Porter County Council. Prior to stories beginning Nov. 10 in The Times, Lightfoot and Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber did not respond to repeated requests for individual and/or joint interviews, including a certified letter to Lightfoot on Oct. 23.
Webber ultimately agreed to respond to written questions provided by The Times. His response, printed in full, appeared Nov. 10.
"Personally, I still have no idea where this campaign against me, and members of the court, originated," Lightfoot wrote Monday. "No doubt there is some political agenda behind it of which I am not aware, and I may be the target only in an attempt to discredit others."
Lightfoot briefly discusses her significant political contributions to the court as following "no political lines, nor (having) any political agenda. They were, and always will be, directed to those whom I believe will best serve the needs of the children of our county."
The criticisms of Lightfoot by a citizens' group of child advocates and parents and the discovery of Lightfoot's significant contributions to the courts as well as her co-founding a children's visitation center with a judge who approved her placements led to the Porter County judiciary adopting a new court rule, its first since 1989.
The court rule establishes guidelines for the appointment and qualifications of guardians ad litem in divorce cases.
As a result, several of the attorneys active as guardians ad litem withdrew from providing the service.
Lightfoot's letter discusses a training program for guardians ad litem arranged by the Children/Parent Center, the children's visitation center she co-founded with Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber.
Mother: 'The courts terrified me.'
NWI Times
December 15, 1996
VALPARAISO - It was 6 a.m. on a Sunday in April 1995.
Roused from her sleep, Susan Finley heard knocking on her door. When she opened the door, Finley was so shocked she can't remember today how many police officers came to take her children away.
"They handed me some sort of court order to relinquish my children to them and take them to my ex-in-laws," Finley said. "I wish there could have been another way to take the children. ... To this day, they're scared of police.
"I was shocked until (police) took them out the door," Finley said. "Once the door shut, I thought I was going to die. They were ripping my heart out."
Finley recalls thinking while police were taking her children, ages 5 and 7, out of their beds, "Why are they doing this to me? I'm a good mother."
Finley had not been charged with abuse or neglect.
Court documents show Finley lost custody because she kept her two sick children home instead of sending them off with their father for his scheduled Easter weekend visitation.
With the couple disagreeing about the seriousness of the children's illness, their father, Scott Finley of South Haven, contacted the children's guardian ad litem, Beatrice Lightfoot of Burns Harbor.
Webber's court order removing the children with police and giving temporary custody to Scott Finley's parents was filed in court on a Wednesday without a hearing on the matter. Police took the children on Sunday.
Finley would not regain custody of her children until June 10, although medical affidavits confirmed the children's illness.
Finley says she never did have her day in court on the issue.
Finley today believes the more personal, supportive system offered by family court advocates would have prevented police coming to her door.
State Sen. William Alexa, D-Valparaiso, said he will sponsor a bill to establish three family courts at state expense.
Should the bill pass the legislature, each county's judiciary will have the opportunity to apply for state funds to establish a unified family court system.
Alexa said he believes Porter County to be a good candidate for the project because it is on the cusp of being a medium-sized county. The other two candidates must be rural or urban in demographics.
Unlike Porter County, whose only consolidation of family issues is to assign dissolutions to two magistrates, Lake County already has established a domestic relations bureau, the first step in developing a family court, according to Alexa.
Domestic relations bureaus offer counseling and mediation services. "If something like that had been available, none of this would have happened," Finley says. Instead, her court experience has left Finley with memories of feeling "totally helpless and powerless."
Family Court: a better way?
Another divorced mother, Kimberly Cole, now of Chesterton, lives with memories similar to Finley's.
This year, at 7:30 p.m. on Jan. 2, police knocked on Cole's door in Jackson Township.
Kimberly and Todd Cole were in the midst of a bitter divorce. The couple's son, Andrew, 2, was living with Kimberly and her son by a former marriage. Police asked only for Andrew, handing Cole a copy of a handwritten order granting her husband custody of Andrew on the grounds he was a fit father. Cole was not to see Andrew again for eight days. Cole, a nurse, says she was not able to work for nearly a month.
"I and my family suffered deep emotional separation anxiety," Cole says.
The morning after the child was taken, Cole's ex-husband appeared at her door with another court order and more police to collect all the couple's furniture and other major possessions. "I was allowed to keep my jewelry."
Cole says she was unaware at the time that her divorce had been granted Dec. 21 by Porter County Magistrate James Johnson while Cole's attorney was out of the country.
The following month, prosecutors charged Cole with battering Todd Cole's son from a former marriage, who had been living with the couple before their separation. In a curious and unusual move, prosecutors have since agreed to dismiss the felony charges provided there were no further allegations. She, like Finley, agrees a family court system would have prevented this confrontation.
The Family Court movement
The complicated lives of splintering families and the impact on communities have launched the legal community on a search for alternatives. The role of the courts in family disintegration are on the minds of national, state and local figures.
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, in presenting a distinguished award to a Delaware family court judge last month, said, "How these cases are handled has a tremendous impact on public perceptions of what justice is in this country."
As a result of Indiana's own problems in dealing with the growing trend of families in crisis, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard has proposed the General Assembly consider a pilot program to explore whether a family court structure can better provide the relief families increasingly are seeking through the courts.
There is no true unified family court system in existence in Indiana, although some counties have some aspects of a family court system in place, according to state Court Administrator Bruce Kotzan.
Former Cass County Circuit Court Judge Donald Leicht, however, believes his court qualified as a true family court until it was dismantled by his successor in 1994. He has traveled the state for nearly four years touting its success.
"I think the interest in family courts arises because of growing concern about the state of the American family, and among the places you can see the ebb and flow is in courtrooms," Chief Justice Shepard said.
"Among the objectives of the family court movement is to try to get dysfunctional families in front of the same judge," Shepard continued.
What attorneys and judges tell Shepard is that today it is "quite ordinary to be in divorce court, juvenile court and criminal court," all at the same time.
"Back in the old days," Shepard said, "a single judge (handled all those issues), so it didn't really matter if a family came in again and again because there was only one judge and he knew the story so the court could do an effective job.
"Part of the idea (is) to create an internal system that achieves what those old one county court judges had," Shepard said.
Alexa said the family court concept includes a departure from the traditional adversarial approach taken by the legal community in addressing conflicts."The adversarial system, which our system of justice uses, is ill-equipped to handle domestic cases.
"In an adversarial system, you have a winner and a loser. That's not the way it's supposed to work in a domestic relations situation. Everyone's supposed to be a winner, but the justice system itself lends itself to an opposite of that," Alexa said.
According to Alexa, the current system "pits people against each other, antagonizes them every time they sit down to work things out. That's one of the things a family court addresses."
Alexa said he will push the family court legislation because "We have an opportunity to do it and have it paid for. It just seems to make sense."
Individual rights vs. family interest
The idea is not without its detractors.
Supporters argue the crisis in today's family life demands the holistic approach of the family court system to stem problems early.
Opponents, however, question whether one judge can be sufficiently neutral in dealing with an individual when they "know too much" about the family.
Former Cass County Circuit Court Judge Leicht, now a Kokomo attorney, swears by the family court system he built with the assistance of the Logansport community.
"I got terribly frustrated with several aspects of the judicial system," Leicht said of his six-year tenure as judge. "It came to my consciousness that the way we were handling cases was fostering a great deal of the problems I was seeing."
Leicht said he found members of the same family in three different courts with none of the judges communicating about anything. As a result, the judges often issued conflicting orders.
"The logical thing was to put family problems into one court where that one judge handled them," Leicht said.
Next, Leicht took steps to eliminate the adversarial aspects of getting a divorce.
"In handling divorces, we in the legal system use a glorified adversarial system which meant two people getting a divorce ended up going to war," Leicht said.
In addition to establishing a family support center, in which law enforcement, probation, caseworkers and others worked under the same roof and off a central filing system, Leicht changed his own court procedures.
No longer did attorneys for a couple engage in a discovery process "to find out everything they can about each other." Instead, Leicht issued a disclosure order asking for specific information regarding marital assets, taxes and insurance. "It eliminates the incentive to play hide and seek," Leicht said.
Leicht said the changes in the system reduced juvenile placements, whether local or out-of-state, by 35 percent in one year.
"We saved a ton of money," Leicht said. "It works."
However, Miami Circuit Court Judge Bruce Embrey, like many judges, doesn't want to be a judge who handles only family matters. And many families, he said, ask for a change of judge when a judge gets to know a family too well.
"Family members fear you might be prejudiced," Embrey said. "Every judge should have a sign above his desk that says above all else you are to be a neutral and detached magistrate," Embrey said. "You can't lose sight of that."
Embrey added a change in court structure may not be the real answer so much as the availability of more remedies to judges.
Still, that's not saying Embrey opposes family courts. He favors legislation that allows courts to opt into a family court arrangement if they choose, he said.
Porter Superior Court Judge Mary Harper, who will take the circuit and juvenile court bench in January, said the family court concept is consistent with things she's already trying to get organized in juvenile court. "It all starts with poor parenting and children who don't learn how to deal appropriately with dispute."
Harper, however, like Porter Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Thode, questioned whether a family court was a practical solution for Porter County. "It appears to me that the goals (of a family court) might very well be accomplished by the imposition of a case management system," Thode said.
Then and now
"The courts terrified me," Susan Finley says today.
Somehow the children were restored to her two months after they were taken away, she said. She never questioned it. "I was just so grateful to get them back."
Finley says "everything has worked itself out great," but only after the couple got the counseling they needed.
But the support came "after the fact," Finley says.
Finley said she would support a family court setting, where family counseling and alternative dispute resolutions are emphasized over legalities.
Finley says the couple has worked out thorny visitation issues. Only child support arrangements remain in dispute, but Finley can see an end to those problems as well, she says. "I'm hopeful come February we can get that straightened out," she says. "I don't let them interfere with visitation."
Scott Finley agrees the only outstanding issue between the couple now is child support, but he doesn't agree that police taking the children without anyone's prior knowledge was inappropriate. "(The children) couldn't understand why they had to be taken away from their mom, but I knew why," he said.
Finley said he was "very satisfied" with the system as it is in Porter County and felt Lightfoot's intercession provided a voice for fathers in a system he feels is biased towards mothers. "She was wonderful."
Finley questioned judges' impartiality in a family court system. If he had had other pending cases against him, he doesn't think one judge could separate the issues fairly. "If you go and see one judge, who's to say they're not going to hold that against you?"
But like Susan Finley, Kimberly Cole supports the idea of a more personalized court system.
"If the judge knows the family and sees all the struggles, I think they could analyze the situation a whole lot better," said Cole.
"The court is so impersonal," Cole said. "You need to be able to sit down at a table and see what you're going to do."
To the Coles, the only important lingering issue is Andrew's custody, which currently remains with Todd Cole.
In June, Kimberly Cole filed papers with the court to regain custody. She doesn't understand why it will take 10 months before she will have her day in court.
"I filed in June, couldn't get a court date until February and that's been continued until April," Cole said. "And these are (Andrew's) developmental years."
In addition to what she sees as a dawdling court system, Cole points to its cost, which is "astronomical."
Cole has incurred $18,000 in expenses, which her parents are helping to shoulder. She points to the effects on her job and her health. "It doesn't affect just me but everybody in the family."
Todd Cole withheld any comment at this time except to say, "Kim and I have been divorced for a year, and this will be the third judge we're going to see."
Family Court: Back to the future?
NWI Times
Dec 15, 1996
VALPARAISO - It was 6 a.m. on a Sunday in April 1995. Roused from her sleep, Susan Finley heard knocking on her door.
When she opened the door, Finley was so shocked she can't remember today how many police officers came to take away her children, ages 5 and 7.
"They handed me some sort of court order to relinquish my children to them and take them to my ex-in-laws," Finley said.
Finley had not been charged with abuse or neglect.
Court documents show Finley lost custody because she kept her two sick children home instead of sending them off with their father for his weekend visitation.
With the couple disagreeing about the seriousness of the children's illness, their father, Scott Finley of South Haven, contacted the children's guardian ad litem, Beatrice Lightfoot of Burns Harbor.
According to court records, on the Monday after the scheduled visitation, Lightfoot reported to Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber that Susan Finley was not complying with court orders regarding counseling, visitation and communication with the guardian ad litem.
Webber's court order removing the children was filed in court on a Wednesday without a hearing. Police took the children on Sunday.
Finley today believes the more personal, supportive system offered by family court advocates would have prevented police coming to her door.
State Sen. William Alexa, D-Valparaiso, said he will sponsor a bill to establish three family courts at state expense.
Should the bill pass the legislature, each county's judiciary will have the opportunity to apply for state funds to establish a unified family court system.
Alexa said he believes Porter County to be a good candidate for the project because it is on the cusp of being a medium-sized county. The other two candidates must be rural or urban in demographics.
Unlike Porter County, whose only consolidation of family issues is to assign dissolutions to two magistrates, Lake County already has established a domestic relations bureau, the first step in developing a family court, according to Alexa.
The Family Court movement
The complicated lives of splintering families and the impact on communities have launched the legal community on a search for alternatives.
State Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard has proposed the General Assembly consider a pilot program to explore whether a family court structure can better provide the relief families increasingly are seeking through the courts.
"Among the objectives of the family court movement is to try to get dysfunctional families in front of the same judge," Shepard continued.
What attorneys and judges tell Shepard is that today it is "quite ordinary to be in divorce court, juvenile court and criminal court," all at the same time.
"Back in the old days," Shepard said, "a single judge (handled all those issues), so it didn't really matter if a family came in again and again because there was only one judge and he knew the story so the court could do an effective job."
There is no true unified family court system in existence in Indiana, although some counties have some aspects of a family court system in place, according to state Court Administrator Bruce Kotzan.
Alexa said the family court concept is less adversarial.
"In an adversarial system, you have a winner and a loser. That's not the way it's supposed to work in a domestic relations situation," Alexa said.
The idea is not without its detractors.
Opponents question whether one judge can be sufficiently neutral in dealing with an individual when they "know too much" about the family.
"Family members fear you might be prejudiced," Miami Circuit Court Judge Bruce Embrey said.
Then and now
Somehow the children were restored to Susan Finley two months after they were taken away, she said. She never questioned it. "I was just so grateful to get them back."
Finley said she would support a family court setting, but Scott Finley said he was "very satisfied" with the system as it.
Scott Finley questioned judges' impartiality in a family court system. If he had had other pending cases against him, he doesn't think one judge could separate the issues fairly.
But like Susan Finley, Kimberly Cole of Chesterton supports the idea of a more personalized court system.
In January, Cole's 2-year-old son was taken from her by police. She and her husband, Todd Cole, were in the midst of a bitter divorce when police handed her a copy of a handwritten order granting her husband custody of the boy on the grounds he was a fit father.
Cole, who is still seeking to regain custody, says she was unaware at the time that her divorce had been granted while her attorney was out of the country.
"If the judge knows the family and sees all the struggles, I think they could analyze the situation a whole lot better," Cole said.
Region needs to blaze trail
The issue: Establishing a unified family court system
NWI Times
Dec 16, 1996
The issue: Establishing a unified family court system
Our opinion: Indiana should take a major step forward by changing how courts deal with family problems.
A structured unified family court system in Indiana is long overdue.
There is no question societal problems in large part have been caused by the continuing disintegration of families.
Unfortunately, the court system is often called upon to clean up the mess.
And just as often various family members find themselves spread throughout the court system in front of several different judges.
How is a judge in one court expected to know how another is dealing with a single family's troubles?
It makes more sense to have a family court where one judge handles all the cases involved with a family, including divorce, juvenile and criminal matters.
The concept of family court is not new. Eight states and the District of Columbia have unified family courts. Another four states have begun pilot programs. U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno is a proponent of family court.
State Sen. William Alexa, D-Valparaiso, will soon introduce legislation to establish a family court system in Indiana. He has the backing of Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard.
The proposed legislation calls for $300,000 to fund the family court system in three counties willing to participate in a pilot program for two years beginning Jan. 1, 1998. Porter County is a prime candidate for this test to prove the progressive program works.
Opponents of the concept maintain it may be difficult for one judge to remain objective when he or she knows so much about a family. We disagree. In fact, just the opposite may be true.
It's impossible to ask judges to be objective and make solid decisions when they do not have all the facts and evidence.
Resisting this change would no doubt perpetuate an already untenable breakdown in our judicial system as demonstrated in more than one Porter County case where children were removed from their home by police officers without a court hearing, and certainly there are other cases around the state.
Families in crisis deserve a review by an impartial judge who knows all the circumstances.
Once the bill is introduced, we hope the General Assembly quickly approves the funding appropriations necessary to get the ball rolling.
Rules keep order in the court
NWI Times
Jan 6, 1997
For there to be order in the court, there must be rules.
In the most litigious nation in the world, there are quite naturally rivers of rules: federal, state and local.
Some Indiana counties, like Marion, plunge right into the practical.
The very first of Marion County's dozens of rules orders attorneys to give clients 10 days' notice of their intention to withdraw from a case. Others, like St. Joseph County, preface their rules with thoughtful reminders like that of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger: "... The ablest lawyers and judges have found that certain quite fixed rules of etiquette and manners are the lubricant to keep the focus of the courtroom contest on issues and facts and away from distracting personal clashes and irrelevancies."
Shortly thereafter the court begins its rules with: "Lawyers and litigants shall not lean on the bench. Lawyers shall not sit on counsel tables." Eight years ago, Porter County had barely three legal-size pages of skeletal rules.
Until two months ago, when the court adopted a new rule establishing a guardian ad litem program, the three pages were the county's last rules, yellowing in a file drawer in the office of the local court administrator. Last week, the Porter County court released revamped rules in a 68-page, simple but handsome, bound blue booklet.
The project has been in the works for at least two years. The result largely sets to writing the practices that have become established among judges, lawyers and litigants over the years.
But it also includes some significant changes. Among them:
* Like criminal prosecutors for the last year, civil attorneys will no longer be able to "shop" for the judge of their choice.
* Some less serious criminal cases will be decided by Circuit Judge Mary Harper and Superior Court judges Thomas Webber and Roger Bradford. Meanwhile Superior Court judges Nancy Vaidik and Jeffrey Thode will get to try their hand at more serious civil cases.
* Family court litigants will experience a more structured guardian ad litem program, a less adversarial information-gathering process, and visitation guidelines.
* And it contains the beginning, if only a single sentence, of a movement toward alternative dispute resolution in family law matters.
Also, at least one new local rule goes against the grain of a state statute that decrees the court will have a presiding judge.
Under the 1989 local rules, the court's then five judges selected the now deceased Bruce Douglas as their presiding judge.
The new local rules, however, say the county's six judges will make decisions in concert and not elect a presiding judge.
Nevertheless, a state statute provides should the judges fail to agree on a matter, the decision belongs to the senior judge, who will act as presiding judge. That judge is now Bradford, replacing former Circuit Court Judge Raymond Kickbush who stepped down last month.
State Court Administrator Bruce Kotzan said it is unique for a county like Porter to have a presiding judge.
There is a greater effort to place presiding judges in counties that have a judiciary named by a merit or other non-political system, according to Kotzan. "In counties where judges are elected, the legislature tends not to want to hold one elected official over another elected official," Kotzan said. The benefit of a presiding judge is having responsibility fixed on one person "to see that certain things are accomplished."
On the other hand, according to Kotzan, decisions by consensus are more willingly accepted "when you're dealing with six individuals with (equal) inherent authority."
Bradford, like Webber, did not return phone calls.
Judges Vaidik, Harper and Thode, however, all agreed the new rules offer consistency for lawyers and litigants and more comprehensive caseloads for judges.
"Generally we gave direction to attorneys about practices we've observed but haven't put into writing," Vaidik said last week about the new rules.
Vaidik said it was important for rules to be as consistent among the six courts as possible. The rules tell attorneys "how to get in and out" of court.
Specifically, Vaidik said, there are now rules exerting more control over gathering information in divorce cases "so everyone has to fill out forms on assets and liabilities before we even get into court."
Families will benefit from the new rules, but so will judges, according to Vaidik, who will get to add some major civil cases to her current largely criminal misdemeanor caseload.
A new case assignment system, in which the clerk's office uses color-coded marbles to assign cases randomly, will more evenly distribute the caseloads, Vaidik said.
In addition, the superior courts of Webber and Bradford will absorb all Class D felonies except for driving-related offenses.
"There will be variety for the judges, and it will help equalize the caseload," Vaidik said.
The rules also add some uniformity to the orders issued by the six judges. "The lack of uniformity and consistency hurts the bar and the public,"Vaidik said. "This makes it easier for the litigants to use our system."
As for the judges' consensual administrative style, Vaidik said it has worked since she took the bench in 1992. "My theory is, if it's not broken, don't fix it."
Harper said the most significant outcome of the project has been coming up with a standard set of rules that "eliminate uncertainties and variations" for lawyers as they go from court to court.
And the new case assignment system eliminates "forum shopping" by attorneys. While not a problem in Porter County, Harper said it was not unusual for prosecutors elsewhere to refuse to file cases in certain judges' courts.
With the Indiana Supreme Court rectifying that problem by mandating random case assignment last year, the judges extended the practice to civil cases here.
Porter County Prosecuting Attorney James Douglas said his office will experience some substantial changes because of the reallocation of some Class D felony cases to different courts.
"It will take a little bit to get on line," Douglas said.
Harper estimated the change could add some 200 cases to herself, Webber and Bradford.
Harper, like Vaidik, approves of the court's consensual decision-making. "A presiding judge carries a huge amount of administrative work that keeps you out of the courtroom," Harper said. "Basically (consensus) has eliminated competitiveness among the judges, with which many years ago there were difficulties."
Thode is especially pleased with the expanded role to be played by the superior court's county division judges like himself and Vaidik. A third judge, who replaces Harper at the county level, is expected to be named this week.
"It gives us a break from the day-in, day-out work," Thode said.
He also expects some "big changes" for the county's two magistrates who currently handle the county's domestic relations cases. The rules contain various forms and procedures for the magistrates to absorb.
William Alexa, an attorney as well as state senator, said he is pleased to "have written rules so everyone knows where they stand."
He is particularly pleased with changes in domestic relations procedures. "Now we're under duty to supply information from the top. That makes a lot of sense. This is not supposed to be trial by ambush."
A step in right direction - New Porter County Court Rules
NWI Times
Jan 8, 1997
The issue: New court rules
Our opinion: The Porter County judges have shown good faith by adopting written rules for the operation of its courts.
While 1996 had not been a particularly positive year for the Porter County courts and its six judges amid controversy over several issues, 1997 appears to be off to a good start.
At least two years in the making, a set of new court rules establishing how the court will function has been released by the judges.
They should be commended for finally putting into place a number of specific rules, some based upon how the courts had operated in the past, and others making significant changes.
Puzzling however, is why the judges in the opening of their 68-page booklet of published rules, specifically addressed the issue of not having a presiding judge in Porter County.
The six judges apparently agree a presiding judge is not necessary and one will not be selected in Porter County.
Even though the State Court Administrator says it is unusual for a county like Porter to have a presiding judge, state codes provide that when judges fail to select a chief judge, the duty and responsibilities fall to the senior judge.
It is important, if not critical, that a presiding judge - one with at least administrative authority over the other judges - be named.
How else can it be assured the new rules will be implemented and followed? Can you imagine running the sheriff's department without a sheriff? Or, the county council without a chairperson?
Nonetheless, it is apparent the judges have displayed good faith in even adopting these rules.
And they even took a surprising step forward by alluding to possible movement toward family court reform.
Sen. William Alexa, D-Valparaiso, is planning to introduce legislation in Indiana calling for the establishment of a unified family court system in the state.
Initially the bill will ask for money to fund the family court system in three Indiana counties for two years beginning Jan. 1, 1998.
As we've stated before, we believe Porter County is a prime candidate for the progressive program.
And, based on their most recent actions, it appears the Porter County judges may also be leaning toward taking this positive step.
So, while 1996 is probably a year our judges want to forget, they have also begun the process of making 1997 a banner year and have our support at this early stage of renaissance.
Visclosky pledges action on issues
NWI Times
Jan 12, 1997
U.S. Rep. Pete Visclosky collected a list of needs his Porter County constituents want addressed, from securing funding for an erosion study, to getting Illinois to lower the Skyway toll fee, to child custody disputes.
Visclosky, D-1st District, who was re-elected in November to his seventh term, held sessions Saturday in Valparaiso, Chesterton and Portage.
The issue of child custody in Valparaiso, where about 35 people showed up, drew perhaps the most fervent discussion of the day.
"What we need is an emergency court system" to deal with crises in child custody cases, Kimberly Cole of Chesterton told Visclosky. A year ago, Cole's husband was granted custody of the couple's son, Andrew, now 3.
Cole and other parents have challenged the impartiality and fitness of Judge Thomas Webber's appointment of guardian Beatrice Lightfoot of Portage. Cole also is among those who advocate a family court system that would have handle custody and other family issues.
Edward Frankiewicz, 81, of Highland also asked Visclosky to address a custody-related issue. He came to the Valparaiso forum because of his unhappiness with the actions of judges in a case involving his grandchildren, whose parents live in Porter County.
"I've tried to safeguard my grandchildren for eight years. ... This is about ... how much power the judges have," Frankiewicz said.
Visclosky could offer little assistance.
"Custody has always been considered a prerogative of the states and the judicial system. I can't conceive of anyone hurting a child, but this is not a federal issue."
Visclosky promised to have his staff members hold follow-up discussions with Cole and Frankiewicz.
The congressman's main thrust at his forums was to discuss events coming up in this year's session. He said he will, in the 105th Congress:
* Pursue $100,000 in funding for a study of erosion along Beauty Creek in Valparaiso.
* Continue efforts to work with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Illinois legislators to reduce the $2 toll on the Chicago Skyway.
* Continue efforts to obtain funds for Northwest Indiana's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, for which $3 million was allocated last year.
* Take up again the issue of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. "I'm hopeful we can finally get it out of both chambers and send it to the states for ratification," Visclosky said. He also plans to reintroduce the balanced budget enforcement act.
* Pursue measures making it easier for small businesses to offer pension funds.
* Continue the fight against "corporate welfare" in which federal tax funds are used to aid Fortune 500 companies.
* Reform campaign financing by requiring absolute disclosure, even of indirect donations made by special interest groups on the candidates' behalf.
Health care, particularly Medicare benefits, drew interest in both Portage and Valparaiso, with Visclosky predicting Medicare would be the only area of health care reform to be debated this year.
Family court bill faces first hurdle
NWI Times
Jan 15, 1997
About the bill Preliminary family court legislation would:
* Establish a voluntary pilot project.
* Operate Jan. 1, 1998 through Dec. 31, 1999.
* Grant funds to the counties selected to participate.
* Consist of one rural, one medium-size and one urban county.
* Requires applicants to submit plans by Sept. 30.
Although concerned about funding, four of Porter County's six judges support the concept of family court legislation being heard today before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The legislation provides for the establishment of three family court systems of varying size for a period of two years.
The pilot program would explore the feasibility of such court restructuring in Indiana, where no true unified family court system exists.
The innovation is an alternative to present court systems, where increasingly families in crisis have members in several courts at the same time.
Under a family court structure, cases involving family matters will be heard by the same judge.
According to state Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard, the legislation is a response by the Commission on Courts to the high interest lawmakers have shown in the concept.
"This will show people how it can work in an Indiana setting," Shepard said last month.
"My proposal was that the ideal way of exploring these issues was to create a pilot project to try techniques in a variety of settings and examine the advantages and disadvantages," Shepard said.
Sen. William Alexa, D-Valparaiso, a sponsor of the resulting legislation, said he believes Porter County is a good candidate for the pilot program.
Alexa, who has sponsored multiple pieces of legislation designed to combat domestic violence and related issues, sees the project as a way for courts to handle family matters in a less adversarial way.
The adversarial system used by the court system, according to Alexa, is "ill-equipped to handle domestic cases."
Should the bill pass the legislature, it will be up to a county's judges to make an application.
Alexa said he forwarded information on the pending legislation to all six of the county's judges.
Porter Superior Court Judges Roger Bradford, the court's senior judge, and Thomas Webber expressed interest in the project, according to Alexa.
While Bradford and Webber refused to comment, Porter Superior Court Judge Nancy Vaidik said the judges have not held their regular monthly meeting where the issue usually would be discussed.
"I'm interested in it as well," Vaidik said, "but I am concerned that the funding is so low."
Aside from funding concerns, Vaidik said, "This will take brainstorming and innovative thinking in order to develop a system for Porter County, and (it will take) the cooperation of all the judges."
The current proposal allocates $150,000 to the project, which breaks out to only $25,000 per county each year of the project.
"That concerns me when you're talking about reorganizing a system and adding officiating officers and court personnel," Vaidik said.
Alexa, however, said funding may well be restored to its original $300,000 or even better during today's committee hearing.
"We may just bump that up," Alexa said. "It's a reach and grab figure. No one knows how much they may need to set up this demonstration."
While the legislature will not write "a blank check," according to Alexa, the funding can be modified according to a county's needs.
Should the bill survive today's hearing as he expects, the bill moves to the Senate Finance Committee, Alexa said.
The family court concept is also supported by Circuit Court Judge Mary Harper, Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Thode, and newly appointed Superior Court Judge Julia Jent, who will be sworn in Monday.
"If the legislature can give us a model or set some parameters within which we can develop a model ... it's important for us to see if it's workable in Porter County," Harper said.
Harper, as circuit and juvenile court judge, would be the most likely judge to assume family court jurisdiction.
"I'd be real willing to help," said Harper, who took the circuit court bench only this month. "We're looking at a lot of new things.
"If Porter County were interested, we'd work with the legislation," Thode said. "I'm in favor of any additional tools to simplify the process and streamline the litigation process."
"It would really require our judges to sit down and come up with implementation procedures," Thode said, adding the caseload could well require the services of more than one judge.
Thode also believed, however, a family court structure might not be necessary if the county's computerized case management system helps judges track an individual's involvement in other courts.
The county is investigating computer software for such a system, which is expected to improve much of the court's current communication problems.
Jent, meanwhile, said the family court legislation holds a lot of appeal for her, but "the funding is ridiculous even for a pilot program."
Family court plan clears first hurdle
NWI Times
Jan 16, 1997
About the bill Amended family court legislation would:
* Increase funding to $300,000 over two years.
* Restrict creating new judgeships.
* Require approval of county councils or commissions.
* Create pilot programs in at least three counties of any size.
What's next
The bill is expected to be heard by the Senate Finance Committee within one week. That panel will decide whether to send the legislation to the Senate for its second reading.
Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard told the 10-member Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the most important thing about the family court proposal before them "was to give it a try."
The committee heeded Shepard by unanimously passing family court legislation that has been a topic among legislators for five years.
"The idea behind family court is consolidating before one judge all those different kinds of cases that arise from a particular family," Shepard said.
Lawyers and judges throughout the state have told Shepard it is all too common to find members of a single family in three or four courts at the same time.
Three of four counties interested in the concept are from Northwest Indiana: Porter, Lake and LaPorte. The fourth is Allen County.
"We really are not in a bad position to do this," said Porter Circuit Court Judge Mary Harper after Wednesday's hearing.
If the bill passes the legislature and the county successfully applies for the pilot program, Harper, as circuit and juvenile court judge, is the most likely of the county's six judges to assume family court jurisdiction.
Four of the county's six judges have indicated support of the concept.
The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. William Alexa, D-Valparaiso, and Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville.
Alexa said Wednesday that besides the Chief Justice, the bill was supported at the committee hearing by Indiana Advocates for Children Inc., an influential non-profit children's advocacy organization based in Indianapolis.
The group has sought the legislation for five years, according to Alexa.
Wednesday's committee hearing addressed funding and other concerns expressed by Harper and three colleagues, Porter Superior Court Judges Nancy Vaidik, Jeffrey Thode and newly appointed Julia Jent.
Porter Superior Court Judges Roger Bradford, the court's senior judge, and Thomas Webber refused to comment.
An amendment proposed by Alexa restored the funding to $300,000 as originally proposed by the Commission on Courts.
"It's a lot more feasible," Harper said. "Porter County is really fortunate to have legislators with seniority and who are listened to."
Another amendment to the bill restricts counties from creating new judgeships to assume family court jurisdiction, although some judges fear the burden may be too much for one judge.
"This proposal is about effective use of resources, not necessarily about the need for more resources," Shepard said.
Shepard said establishing a court in which judges do not need to be re-educated on a family's problems each time a member appears in court saves time and resources.
"That means less of a burden, not more," he said.
"This is an organizational proposal," Shepard said. "We're already doing the work. The question is how do you do it best."
While Shepard said four counties have expressed interest in the project, he cautioned the experiment will be taken slowly.
"I candidly admit to you," Shepard told the committee, "we haven't gotten very far in the (details of the selection process)."
"Our posture is (the judiciary) is making the offer," Shepard said after the hearing. "We're willing to be part of it."
Family court bill passes finance committee
NWI Times
Feb 21, 1997
VALPARAISO - In preparation for the anticipated passage of a family court pilot program, Porter Circuit Court Judge Mary Harper is studying courts who have successful programs.
Harper learned Thursday the family court proposal before the state Senate has passed another test. The Senate Finance Committee voted unanimously the same day to recommend the passage of the legislation.
Because the bill requires an appropriation by the General Assembly, the finance committee must pass the bill before the entire Senate may vote upon it. The bill is expected to reach the Senate floor next week.
If the bill becomes law, Porter County judges have expressed their interest in applying for the project, which will establish a minimum of three such courts on a trial basis at state cost.
Sen. William Alexa, D-Valparaiso, a sponsor of the bill, has said the county's chances of landing one of the courts are increased if the judges have a plan in place at the time of application.
Harper, who as circuit and juvenile court judge is the most likely to obtain family court jurisdiction, said she has obtained information from family court judges in Hawaii and Florida, two of the country's most successful.
The purpose of a family court is to treat all court cases affecting a family as one unit.
For example, a family's divorce proceedings, juvenile offenses and abuse cases would be heard by a single judge instead of three.
With a family court program, a single judge would oversee each of these cases or at least have a strong information network enabling the judge to recognize the connection between them.
Lake and Porter counties have volunteered to be a part of the program if the bill passes, according to Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who strongly supports the program.
In Porter County's case, it may hold the dubious distinction of being the last of Indiana's 92 counties to computerize, but that development may prove lucky in the county's bid for a family court.
The county's new case management system is the latest in technology, according to Porter County Commissioner Karen Hughes.
"It's the most integrated system in the state," Hughes said in recent weeks.
A case management system is considered integral to the success of any family court, according to numerous sources.
Making the county's bid even stronger, according to Hughes, is a clause written into the county's contract with its software provider.
Hughes said if the county's current software cannot handle family court requirements, the software company is obligated to write the program because it must provide all functions mandated by Indiana law.
Governor O'Bannon supports family court project
NWI Times
April 09, 1997
VALPARAISO - During his first teleconference with reporters from around the state since his election, Gov. Frank O'Bannon said he supports family courts to help families in distress.
If the family court bill pending before the General Assembly makes its way to his desk, O'Bannon said Tuesday he will review the legislation to make sure it provides adequate funding.
"I'm not going to approve a bill that's not adequately funded, even for a pilot program," O'Bannon said in response to judicial criticism of the program's $300,000 price tag.
The family court legislation provides for a two-year pilot program to explore the feasibility of establishing family courts in Indiana.
Porter Superior Court Judge Roger Bradford and Porter Circuit Court Judge Mary Harper have said the county will apply for the project if the bill passes the General Assembly.
Under a family court structure, most legal issues affecting a family will be heard by a single court. Currently, it is not unusual for family members to find themselves in three or four different courts, resulting in conflicting court orders regarding such issues as juvenile matters, domestic violence, divorce, child custody and support.
O'Bannon, who campaigned on putting Hoosier families first, said the legislation "moves us in the right direction."
Among the governor's top priorities for the state are alternative schools, which remove troubled youngsters from regular schools to "help turn them around."
O'Bannon favors such school reform early on in youngsters' lives rather than see them "on public assistance or in prison later on," he said.
Many such students come from the dysfunctional families seen by family courts. The governor said he welcomes the "institutional help" family courts can provide, particularly in light of recent research that pinpoints the critical nature of early childhood development.
The governor made his remarks during a conference call with reporters from 17 news organizations throughout the state.
Spokesman Phil Bremen said the governor wanted to reach outlying news organizations "on issues of importance to them."
In his opening remarks, O'Bannon stressed his top three priorities: a balanced budget, alternative schools and safe streets.
By far, however, media queries about taxes outdistanced those on school reform or crime.
The governor said his opponents' frequent criticism of his tax plans is unearned.
Contrary to contentions, O'Bannon said, his tax bill does provide some immediate tax breaks to taxpayers through such features as renters' relief and earned income tax credits to workers earning less than $10,000.
However, such popular tax proposals as removing welfare or schools from property tax funding require comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, planning because of shifting burdens.
"It sounds good until you (ask) who's going to pay for it," O'Bannon said. Replacing the loss from property taxes with local county income taxes sounds good, according to the governor, "but smaller counties can't afford it."
Lightfoot quits, closes center
NWI Times
Apr 24, 1997
VALPARAISO - Beatrice Lightfoot, a court-appointed guardian ad litem for children enmeshed in domestic relations disputes, has resigned from every case in the court of her primary supporter, Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber.
Additionally, Lightfoot's Children-Parent Center, a visitation facility for troubled families, will close May 1.
Lightfoot declined comment, but Webber and Karen Klein, the center's manager, said Lightfoot's decision was based on ill health.
"We're sorry to lose her services," Webber said Wednesday. "She saved us a lot of money. Her services will be sorely missed."
Webber said Lightfoot recently had been resigning from every case in his court. In a letter to the court, Lightfoot said her decision was based on health reasons, according to Webber.
Webber said while Lightfoot, currently the only non-attorney guardian ad litem, won't be available, 23 volunteers trained by Indiana Advocates for Children are expected to be certified upon completion of the court's new training requirements.
Klein also pointed toward health issues as the reason for Lightfoot's closing the visitation center, which had opened its doors in October 1995.
"I think it's sad the center is closing," Klein said. "Bea has health problems and is unable to continue with the operations of the center."
Klein said she learned of the closing only last week.
Webber said his staff is reviewing Lightfoot's caseload. He said families under Lightfoot's jurisdiction will receive either new court orders or be advised to consult their attorneys.
Meanwhile, Valparaiso's Family House Executive Director Ruth Massmann said her facility is expected to be able to accommodate the affected families.
"They're going to have to have some kind of a modification of their court order," Massmann said. "I assume the judges will be able to process those ... so there's not a lapse in their visitation."
Lightfoot, the widow of an early Portage developer, had been criticized by a citizen's group composed of child advocates and parents led by Helen Boothe of Dune Acres.
The group questioned Lightfoot's neutrality and opposed Lightfoot's seeking Porter County dollars to help fund her Chesterton center, which they said duplicated services offered by Family House.
"This does not change the proclivity courts seem to have for placing unqualified people in positions of power over other people," Boothe said.
Judges bid farewell to Lightfoot
Post-Tribune (IN)
May 8, 1997
Porter County judges took a break from court schedules Wednesday to bid farewell to retiring guardian ad litem Bea Lightfoot.
For the past seven years, it has been Lightfoot's role to make sure the children are heard over the commotion of parents and attorneys duking it out in divorce and custody battles. "The judges only know what the two attorneys tell them. I speak for the child," the Burns Harbor resident once said of her role.
Lightfoot was one of seven Porter County guardian ad litems.
What sets Lightfoot apart from the rest is she alone offers her time and assistance free of charge. The others, all attorneys, receive $65 an hour for their court advocacy of the child. If the parents are unable to pay, fees are paid out of county funds.
"There is no way we could begin to count the hours she has donated to the courts and to the children of Porter County," said Judge Roger Bradford.
Lightfoot, leaning on a cane during the honorary presentation, said health concerns prompted her retirement. She declined to discuss her service further, citing the stress she has suffered over parents' criticism.
Three vocal parents who had lost custody of their children focused the blame on Lightfoot rather than the judges deciding their cases. It was Lightfoot's job to advise the judges on the best solution for the children.
In their letter of commendation, three judges and two magistrates acknowledged the complaints.
"Every contested court case results in at least one disgruntled person unhappy with the results and too often some people are willing to listen to parental failures grumble without checking the facts," the judges wrote.
After her husband's death, Lightfoot two years ago created a safe home for children caught in parental disputes.
The neutral zone offered supervised visitation for parents who had not won custody. The Children/Family Center in Chesterton, financed by Lightfoot despite attempts by some judges to gain county subsidy, closed in April.
Judges seek family court
NWI Times
Oct 10, 1997
Porter County caseloads
1994 1995 1996
Pending divorces 911 943 924
Delinquency referrals* 1,123 1,187 1,337
Child abuse, neglect* 1,616 1,482 1,333
* About 30 to 35 percent of cases ultimately come before the court.
Sources: Indiana Family and Social Services Administration,
Porter County Juvenile Probation, Porter County Court Administrator.
A family court is in the wind in Porter County even though the prospect didn't survive the last General Assembly.
Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber said he's not sure a unified family court system can work here, but the judges will apply for a grant to the Indiana Supreme Court to find out.
The state Supreme Court has earmarked $250,000 for trial court judges working with families at risk, according to Larry Grau, director of the Indiana Court Improvement Project.
The money originally was awarded to the high court under a nationwide federal initiative to improve court services to children. The Supreme Court decided to redistribute the funds to the lower courts through 10 to 15 grants with $25,000 limits.
Besides Porter County's family court proposal, the project will consider plans for improving coordination of services and the training of court personnel and support services.
Judges are placing more emphasis on family issues, according to Grau, on the theory it's preventative medicine. "They're seeing it as a way to stop court procedures later on by addressing family situations early," he said.
The county's proposal, drawn by Porter Circuit Court Judge Mary Harper, must reach the Indiana Supreme Court by Oct. 17, although Grau said the deadline may be extended because of the many inquiries about the project.
Grau said the successful applicants may be contacted as early as Nov. 3.
Webber said the county's six judges will take up the issue at today's regular judges' meeting.
"We'll fine-tune or approve Judge Harper's proposal," said Porter Superior Court Judge Roger Bradford, the court's senior judge.
Bradford added the judges hope to use a grant to help them gather information.
"We don't know how many cases would need to be funneled one way or another to one judge," Bradford said. "We don't know if it's five or 500."
A unified family court system assigns families in crisis, from child abuse to divorce to domestic battery, to a single judge.
Currently, it's not unusual for members of the same family to have related cases in three or four courts, and it's not unusual for the fates of children in abuse, divorce or other crisis situations to linger with the courts for years.
An effort by Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard to get the legislature to approve a family court pilot program failed during the last General Assembly. Some $300,000 would have been divided among three courts to test the waters.
State Sen. William Alexa, D-Valparaiso, said this week the Commission on Courts has voted to support another legislative effort, but the reality is the judges are free to restructure their courts without a legislative initiative.
"The money was an incentive to come up with something creative," Alexa said.
"There's really nothing they need from the legislature to authorize that kind of an experiment. They could do it with local funds, government funds, donated funds, or they could do it for no money by just changing the way they do things."
If the Porter County judges' proposal to the Supreme Court is denied, Bradford said he still sees benefit in going through the process. Although he doesn't foresee the legislature coming through with a family court program for at least two years. Bradford believes the county will be ready when the legislature does approve the program.
In the interim, Harper, who also oversees juvenile court, said the process has forced the judges to consider many questions. Among their queries: Does every dissolution case go into family court? Does it need to happen in a childless marriage? And how does the court track extended or step-families who often have significant impact on a child?
Mom ends battle for support
Tamara Schwanke quits system after it starts new round with delinquent father who is on parole for non - payment
NWI Times
Apr 19, 1999
HEBRON -- More than three years ago, Karen Wheeler of Chesterton was so vexed from trying to collect $34,000 in child support that she and her children picketed on the steps to the Porter County Administration Center.
Tamara Schwanke of Hebron is taking a different route.
She's decided to quit trying.
"I give up. I'm done."
Schwanke, 33, said she finds the collection system as "degrading" as trying to make her former husband meet his responsibilities.
Court records show Schwanke's former husband, David Fedornock, 35, was more than $16,000 behind in child support payments in 1995. Schwanke claims the actual amount is much more than twice that figure.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber ultimately sentenced Fedornock to three years in the Indiana Department of Corrections for failing to support the couple's daughter. He served 18 months.
It took eight years for authorities to throw in the towel on Fedornock and seek the criminal charges that sent him to prison. A probable cause affidavit said "any further efforts to force compliance from the defendant through the civil courts would be pointless."
Since Fedornock's release from prison in mid-September, court records show he's paid $1,930 to the Porter County Clerk's Office.
But $1,400 of that amount was paid in a lump sum on March 17, the same day he was ordered into court for a hearing after Schwanke notified prosecutors Fedornock was again delinquent in making the payments.
It's uncertain who made the payment or how. Fedornock never showed up for the hearing, prompting a bench warrant for his arrest. There's no record of any payment since that time.
And Schwanke actually received only $350 of the $1,400 because the state of Indiana kept the rest.
"The state wants its take first," Schwanke said.
She said she hasn't been on public assistance in four years, but the state is trying to get its money back for when she was.
Schwanke said the state, however, told her it would send the whole amount if Bruce Dumas, head of the Child Support Collection Division in Porter County, would OK it.
But Schwanke said Dumas' office told her he doesn't take calls. "You always have to write a letter and you can't expect to talk to anyone and you have to expect a six-week wait before any response," she said.
"The prosecutors say I have a hearing July 14, but that's three months, for god's sake."
Dumas couldn't be reached.
His boss, Porter County Prosecutor James Douglas, said the only thing he knew for certain about the case was that his office didn't agree with the most recent decision by Magistrate James Johnson, who also couldn't be reached.
Johnson released Fedornock, who is on parole, without bond after his arrest last week for failing to appear at the March hearing.
Douglas said the case, as described to him, was "the kind of case that drives everybody nuts."
"Most people, although you have to chase them forever, generally start paying before they have to go to jail," he said. "Now you're talking about going through the whole system and he's back not paying and what are we going to do with him?"
Steve Meyer, the county's chief adult probation officer, said he has a similar case.
"We kept locking him up," Meyer said. "Then he fell out of a tree and we went after his disability pay."
"We kept going back and forth, and the guy's still $15,000 in arrearage."
Meyer said putting delinquent parents in jail doesn't mean they don't still have to pay child support. What to do? "Do we keep them on probation forever?"
Fedornock couldn't be reached, but his mother, Corliss Fedornock, said the case is complicated and she never has figured out how the system determines what's current and what's past support.
Without Dumas available, no one at the county level could explain it either.
Trips to the offices of Dumas, Douglas, the probation department and the child support payment office came up short.
But whatever the amount, Corliss Fedornock thinks the case should have been handled differently from the start.
"I'm not saying he shouldn't pay," she said. "He should."
Fedornock, like her former daughter-in-law, faults the system.
"The lawyers don't look into it," she said. "The court-appointed person comes into it once or twice. Do they really look into it? I doubt it."
Children's advocates known as court-appointed special advocates or guardians ad litem are often appointed to such cases.
For her part, Schwanke, a purchasing agent for a wire manufacturer, said she's had enough.
"I've had to call my daughter in from the front porch where she's waited for him until after dark."
When Fedornock went to prison, she thought she was through feeling she was being laughed at by the system.
"I thought somebody listened to me and gave me some justice," she said.
But she said she feels she's back at the bottom again.
"I'm not a money-hungry person," she said. "My daughter's 13. To me the money means if she wants to go to a dance, we can buy her a nice dress."
With her daughter beginning to lose interest in her father, Schwanke said she thinks further struggles to collect child support are useless.
"They know they can get away with it. They know they can beat the system."
County awaits go-ahead for family court
NWI Times
Jan 22, 2000
VALPARAISO -- Porter County has been selected as one of six counties whose funding application for a family court pilot project will be reviewed by the Indiana Supreme Court.
The recommendation could be sent to the high court as early as Monday.
The court is expected to act quickly, said Appellate Court Judge Margret Robb, head of the special task force appointed by the high court to review applications.
If successful, Porter County could see the beginnings of a family court structure in as little as 14 days after acceptance by the high court.
The family court movement is a sweeping change in philosophy in which court cases involving various members of a single family are treated holistically by one judge rather than separately by judges without knowledge of all that is going on with that family.
Supporters say the court needs a coherent picture of the whole family to make decisions in each individual's best interest. Critics argue that approach taints the individual's right to a fair hearing.
In addition to Porter County, the special task force will be recommending proposals from Monroe, Johnson, Cass, Putnam and Posey counties. Three of those six counties will be chosen for the pilot project.
Porter, with a population of 145,000, is the largest of the contenders, followed by Monroe at 115,000 and Johnson at 110,000. Cass, Putnam and Posey have populations ranging from 26,000 to 38,000.
Robb said while the task force did not focus on size, it is a factor.
"Size is an issue," Robb said. "Theoretically, counties could have exactly the same project (in mind), and not be as effective in terms of resources."
The final victors will have to make do with an estimated $280,000 over two years between them.
The awarding of the grants, however, is far more flexible than originally proposed two years ago through a legislative initiative. At that time, the plan was to make like awards to a large, mid-size and small county. The legislative effort failed, but the court subsequently was successful in securing additional funds for its own budget in order to award the grants.
This time around, the court is expected to allocate the funds as needed, which means one county may get as much as two-thirds of the pie with the others sharing the rest. "We've asked each county to give us their financial needs, wish list and bottom line," Robb said.
In Porter County, the wish list would be augmented by funds from the budget of Circuit Court Judge Mary Harper as well as a contribution by Porter-Starke Services in the form of the salary paid to the project's local coordinator.
The proposal, authored by Harper, requests $61,100 annually from the state court with her court matching $31,600. In addition, Harper has requested supplementary funding of $18,000 from the Court Improvement Project, the state component of a national undertaking to improve family law adjudication.
The 22-page proposal is largely grounded in an expansion of community programs that have been under way for some years: the Chronic Repeat Offender Program in which juvenile court staff work closely with the schools, and the Juvenile Summit Team in which a coalition of the judiciary, social service agencies and schools work together to improve communication among agencies and collaborate on case handling. Pivotal to any family court structure is a computerized case management system, which is near completion.
"I hope to bring the same approach as the Juvenile Summit Team to the table," Harper said in discussing the focus of the family court project.
In her work over the past two years in formulating the proposal, Harper said she has found the two "absolute commonalties" in family troubles -- the combination of domestic violence and substance abuse. Her proposal includes bringing on board the assistance of extended family and mediation to aid such families.
"I hope the people in Indianapolis find that innovative," she said.
Harper's proposal indicates she has spent time bringing the community on board as well.
"We've got a terrific circuit court judge," said Lee Grogg, head of Porter-Starke Services. "We've been working on the Summit for the better part of three years, and we're hearing the cases encompass a broad spectrum of problems."
"One of the primary concerns among lawyers is how to best use their time," said Valparaiso attorney David Chidester, past president of the Porter County Bar Association and Harper's husband.
Chidester was president of the group when Harper presented her family court plan to the bar, which is said to be supportive of the initiative.
"If (a lawyer) can handle a CHINS (Child in Need of Services) case, a dissolution matter or an alcohol-related case all in the same place on the same day and help his practice and his client, I think that's why the lawyers are in favor of it," he said. "We see the same family in a myriad of courts."
Bar member Joanne Eldred agreed, citing a case in which custody issues involving two children in the same family were being heard in two different courts. "It doesn't make sense...," she said. "I think it's very good and very helpful for one judge to follow a family and how (one set) of issues can affect other issues."
While Harper, as juvenile court judge, has led the local movement toward adopting a family court model, the project is supported by her fellow judges.
"We're all in favor of it," Porter Superior Court Judge Thomas Webber said.
"The state has the money and they need to start spending it before they lose it. Things are pretty much in place to start the project."
Newly named Appellate Court Judge Nancy Vaidik said the new model allows the left hand to talk to the right. "That's not often the case with courts anywhere, and Judge Harper's plan does just that. It allows the free-flowing of information between agencies to serve the people of Porter County and particularly the families of Porter County."
No comments:
Post a Comment