Family court plan clears first hurdle
NWI Times
Jan 16, 1997
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/family-court-plan-clears-first-hurdle/article_ede183e4-3e2f-51d2-854bd4db1b057b16.html
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 faces first hurdle
NWI Times
Jan 15, 1997
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/family-court-bill-faces-first-hurdle/article_b5894c58-9d93-5f64-bfc7-81ea8e016bc7.html
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."
Visclosky pledges action on issues
NWI Times
Jan 12, 1997
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/visclosky-pledges-action-on-issues/article_01a52469-e131-5708-bb71-00dfc5ab8ed9.html
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.
A step in right direction - New Porter County Court Rules
NWI Times
Jan 8, 1997
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/a-step-in-right-direction/article_6cdde9c4-35bd-5e9c-b773-36a288c3116f.html
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.
Rules keep order in the court
NWI Times
Jan 6, 1997
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/rules-keep-order-in-the-court/article_a5014039-7ec0-5b97-8fe2-c0b1cc02b06e.html
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."
