12161996 - News Article - Region needs to blaze trail - The issue: Establishing a unified family court system

Region needs to blaze trail
The issue: Establishing a unified family court system
NWI Times
Dec 16, 1996
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/region-needs-to-blaze-trail/article_7c4662c3-0a57-5f5f-b912-3e80b6fe4a6c.html
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.

12151996 - News Article - Mother: 'The courts terrified me.' - [Magistrate James Johnson judicial investigation - 2010]

Mother: 'The courts terrified me.'
NWI Times
December 15, 1996
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/mother-the-courts-terrified-me/article_f1d973eb-66c8-5a02-b614-d265386a1eb5.html
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."

12151996 - News Article - Family Court: Back to the future?

Family Court: Back to the future?
NWI Times
Dec 15, 1996
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/family-court-back-to-the-future/article_124bfbee-bec1-5a2a-bd3a-21de01d92835.html
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.

11261996 - News Article - Lightfoot breaks silence on ties to court

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.

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.

11251996 - News Article - Judge Kickbush must act

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.

11241996 - News Article - County guardian ad litem program stalled by rule

County guardian ad litem program stalled by rule
NWI Times
Nov 24, 1996
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/county-guardian-ad-litem-program-stalled-by-rule/article_82aad8bf-0311-54d3-8d91-4a31bb0a8268.html
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."

11051996 - News Article - Family House disputes judge

Family House disputes judge
NWI Times
Nov 5, 1996
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/family-house-disputes-judge/article_f714ac6a-0042-549f-83d0-19e4815804d2.html
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."

11041996 - News Article - Judges try to close loophole

Judges try to close loophole
NWI Times
Nov 4, 1996
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/judges-try-to-close-loophole/article_cfe71cd2-f47c-5c3d-9352-fdc735fcaa3d.html
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."

11031996 - News Article - Criticisms prompt new court rules

Criticisms prompt new court rules
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.

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."

09101996 - News Article - Family House clinches funding for 1997

Family House clinches funding for 1997
NWI Times
Sep 10, 1996
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/family-house-clinches-funding-for/article_d4ceb503-0e7f-5d88-b7b2-c72923ece3f4.html
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."