Archive for April, 2009
April 21st, 2009 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Family Law, Mediation
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Press Contact:
Amber Burton Small
JOCHAM HARDEN DIMICK JACKSON, PC
11450 N. Meridian
Carmel, IN 46032
Phone: 317.569.0770
Email Address: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Web site address: http://www.jhdj-law.com
CARMEL MEDIATOR IS CO-PRESENTER FOR MEDIATION SEMINAR
CARMEL, IN – April 21, 2009 – Attorney and Mediator, Stephenie S. Jocham is a co-presenter along with Dr. John Ehrmann, Jr. for the Indianapolis Bar Association’s luncheon seminar on May 5, 2009 from noon to 1:00 pm. The seminar is part one of the IBA’s 2009 Alternative Dispute Resolution series and will discuss strategies for mediating when participants are emotionally impaired or suffer from personality disorders. The subject matter is timely given the increasing interest in providing litigation alternatives as less costly options for divorce and custody matters.
Ms. Jocham is a founding member of Carmel law firm JOCHAM HARDEN DIMICK JACKSON, PC, where she practices in family law and civil litigation, serving as Chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section. As a registered domestic and civil mediator, she concentrates on providing mediation, arbitration and collaborative law services for her clients with a variety of case types including divorce, custody, and other family law issues. She is a frequent speaker on topics of interest in the areas of family law and alternative dispute resolution. Ms. Jocham is active in several professional organizations and frequently volunteers for community programs including Indianapolis Bar Association’s Ask a Lawyer and Legal Line programs and for a crisis intervention hotline. She has provided pro bono and reduced cost legal representation for clients through Heartland Pro Bono Council and the Indianapolis Bar Association’s Modest Means Program. Previously, she served for several years through the Junior Leagues of Evansville and Indianapolis. Ms. Jocham currently serves on the National Alumnae Board of her alma mater, Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College.
JOCHAM HARDEN DIMICK JACKSON, PC, is a Carmel law firm providing personalized service with a responsive and compassionate approach. Experienced attorneys offer assertive advocacy for clients complemented by a philosophy focused on minimizing conflict and negotiating resolution. The practice assists clients in all areas of family law, collaborative law, adoption, mediation, and business litigation. For more information, please contact Amber Burton Small at 317.569.0770, or visit http://www.jhdj-law.com
Tags: Stephenie Jocham
April 17th, 2009 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Family Law
Attorney and Mediator, Holly J. Wanzer, a member of the Family Law Practice Group of Jocham Harden Dimick Jackson PC, recently presented a teleconference on collaborative law. The timeliness and quality of the content led the seminar to be selected as a webcast on West’s Legal Ed Center. While the teleconference and material is geared toward divorce attorneys and family law professionals, the information can be helpful for anyone who wants to learn more about this developing area of divorce law. Alternatives to litigation will become even more sought after by couples who desire to minimize conflict and resolve their divorces with less emotional and financial costs than traditional methods.
I. Overview of Collaborative Law
a. Definition of Collaborative Law
Collaborative law is method of practicing law which is focused on cooperation as opposed to adversarial litigation. The practice of collaborative law represents a paradigm shift in the approach of attorneys and parties who are most familiar with resolving conflict through litigation. The shift to the collaborative paradigm and away from the litigation paradigm focuses the parties exclusively on the work of settlement as opposed to the work of litigation practiced in court. While settlement certainly occurs in the litigation model of divorce, the spector of being “hauled into court” is removed from the collaborative process as the parties and attorneys commit themselves to the work of a purely negotiation based process.
The key to collaborative law is the commitment of the parties and attorneys to the settlement process and the abandonment of the litigation model. This is achieved through a collaborative contract entered by parties and counsel in which they all agree that litigation is not an option during the process. To the extent that one of the parties breaches that contract and moves the case into litigation, both attorneys who committed to the collaborative process must leave the case. Parties are then required to hire “litigation counsel” to replace their “settlement counsel”.
The practice of collaborative law requires a focus shift by both parties and attorneys. Retention of a collaborative attorney as settlement counsel does not change the nature of the attorney-client relationship, but instead changes the attitudes and tasks both lawyer and client take as they move the case to resolution. The focus on settlement as the ends and not as a means to avoid court requires parties to move out of their corners and into a discussion focused on peacefully changing the family structure in the most mutually advantageous way possible.
To read the complete conference text materials, please select the link: COLLABORATIVE_LAW_TELECONFERENCE_TEXT.pdf
April 17th, 2009 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Family Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Press Contact:
Amber Burton Small
JOCHAM HARDEN DIMICK JACKSON, PC
11450 N. Meridian
Carmel, IN 46032
Phone: 317.569.0770
Email Address: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Web site address: http://www.jhdj-law.com
CARMEL ATTORNEY’S TELESEMINAR SELECTED AS WEBCAST
CARMEL, IN – April 17, 2009 – West LegalEdCenter has selected Holly Wanzer’s presentation on Collaborative Law in Family Law Disputes as a webcast on April 17, 2009. Originally scheduled as a teleseminar through NBI, the session will be simulcast from 2:00 – 3:30 pm. The selection highlights the growing popularity of collaborative law for families seeking alternatives to traditional, more expensive litigation. The trend is expected to continue with the current economy as well as a shift in the focus of divorcing couples who are looking for ways to minimize conflict and focus on coparenting. With this shift, more family law attorneys are enrolling in continuing legal education and training as they consider adding collaborative law to their practices.
Collaborative law is a relatively new form of dispute resolution, pioneered by Minneapolis family lawyer Stuart G. Webb. It is primarily used in divorce as a means of resolving issues privately while minimizing conflict and bitterness. In a collaborative divorce, the separating couple and their attorneys pledge at the outset to try to work things out through consultation and open communication, using lawyers and sometimes other experts to assist in the details. The parties sign an agreement in advance not to go to court or use the information shared in collaborative discussions in litigation. Parties have more control to work out settlement details and find creative solutions for their problems, which they understand better than any judge or third party. Positive outcomes are best reached through respectful communications, not courtroom battles.
Ms. Wanzer is a member of the Family Law Group of JOCHAM HARDEN DIMICK JACKSON, PC. A native of Fort Wayne, Indiana, she graduated magna cum laude from Ball State University, and earned her Juris Doctor summa cum laude from Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis in 1999. Ms. Wanzer represents clients with family law matters including divorce, child support, custody, parenting time, modification and contempt issues. Her commitment to the private resolution of family issues, the preservation of positive working relationships within families, and her calm demeanor and sensitivity in the face of emotional challenges make her the ideal choice as a mediator for family matters. As a domestic mediator, she has been active in promoting alternative dispute resolution, and became one of three attorneys of JHDJ Law to complete collaborative law training. She is a member of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (“IACP”), and the Collaborative Family Law Association of Indiana, Inc.
JOCHAM HARDEN DIMICK JACKSON, PC provides personalized service with a responsive and compassionate approach. Experienced attorneys offer assertive advocacy for clients complemented by a philosophy focused on minimizing conflict and negotiating resolution. With a dynamic team of professionals, the practice assists clients in all areas of family law, collaborative law, adoption, mediation, business litigation and appeals. For more information, please contact Amber Burton Small at 317.569.0770, or visit http://www.jhdj-law.com.
April 13th, 2009 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Adoption
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Press Contact:
Amber Burton Small
JOCHAM HARDEN DIMICK JACKSON, PC
11450 N. Meridian
Carmel, IN 46032
Phone: 317.569.0770
Email Address: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Web site address: http://www.jhdj-law.com
CARMEL, IN – April 13, 2009 – Michele L. Jackson, who chairs the Adoption Practice Group of JOCHAM HARDEN DIMICK JACKSON, PC, recently traveled to Ukraine as part of her international adoption program. In conjunction with The Fatherless Foundation, Ms. Jackson delivered supplies to children in several orphanages in the Ukraine. Local Brownie Troop 93 of the Hunter Service Unit in Hendricks County donated homemade blankets which Ms. Jackson delivered to the children she visited. The second grade troop members each selected different material and made individualized blankets. The troop is under the leadership of JHDJ Law attorney/mediator Holly Wanzer, whose daughter is a member.
The Ukrainian adoption program is one of the international programs administered by MLJ Adoptions, Ms. Jackson’s adoption agency. The program coordinates a successful hosting program each summer for children from the Ukrainian orphanages. Approximately 25 children travel to Indiana for 3 weeks in June to stay with host families and attend various activities and cultural events. The children typically range from ages 4-12, and are considered “harder to place” for adoption because of their ages. For families who are interested in adoption, the hosting program is a unique opportunity to see how an older child could become a part of their family. Additionally, it is an unforgettable experience for the orphans, many of whom have never left the orphanages. Currently, MLJ and JHDJ Law are still searching for additional Indiana families to serve as hosts for this year’s program. If interested in serving as a host family or to learn more about the program, please contact 317-569-0770.
JHDJ Law’s Adoption Practice Group offers domestic and international adoption services including private infant adoptions, step-parent adoptions, second parent (same sex) adoptions, and various international family law services, including contract reviews and orphan visa appeals. Attorney Michele Jackson represents both expectant (birth) and adoptive parents, and provides resources and adoption education.
JOCHAM HARDEN DIMICK JACKSON, PC, is a Carmel law firm providing personalized service with a responsive and compassionate approach. Experienced attorneys offer assertive advocacy for clients complemented by a philosophy focused on minimizing conflict and negotiating resolution. With a collaborative team of professionals, the practice assists clients in all areas of family law, mediation, business litigation and adoption. For more information, please contact Jocham Harden Dimick Jackson, PC at 317.569.0770, or visit http://www.jhdj-law.com.
Tags: Michele Jackson
April 9th, 2009 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Adoption
In the matter of the adoption of Infants H.; Marion County Division of Indiana Department of Child Services v. Stephen, No. 29S02-0904-CV-140,Indiana’s Supreme Court reversed an adoption of twin girls by a New Jersey man. Multiple contradictions in facts of the case were considered by the Supreme Court in its ruling finding that the adoption court failed to comply with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.
The adoptive parent, Stephen, had filed a petition for adoption in Hamilton County in 2005. The children were twin girls born in Indianapolis to a woman from South Carolina using donor sperm and eggs. Following birth, the twins were released to Stephen’s custody by the trial court pending a final hearing. The lower court had also waived the statutory requirement of prior written approval of a licensed placement agency or the Department of Children (formerly the Marion County Office of Family and Children).
Subsequently, the Department of Children became involved in the case when hospital workers called the organization concerned that Stephen visited the twins in the hospital with a pet bird and had bird feces on his coat and seemed unconcerned about potential health risks. Marion Superior Court found the twins to be children in need of services (CHINS) and placed them in the custody of DCS. During the investigation, it was discovered that there were multiple inconsistencies in the adoption petition filed by Stephen. DCS learned he wasn’t a resident of Indiana but was living and working in New Jersey. Despite the initial petition’s claims that Stephen had donated some of the sperm for the insemination, it was learned that he had not and that the sperm was from an unknown donor. When Stephen learned that adoptions to non-Indiana residents are only approved for hard to place children, Stephen amended his adoption petition to state that the twins were biracial and a sibling group and therefore qualified as hard to place.
Despite the multiple inconsistencies and concerns, the Hamilton County court ordered a final hearing after a six-month period of supervision of the placement of the twins with Stephen. The CHINS case was dismissed and the court ruled that DCS consent wasn’t necessary and entered a final decree of adoption.
In addressing the case, the Supreme Court decided to leave open the residency question and instead focused on three other issues in the case. The justices ruled that Hamilton County wasn’t the proper venue for the adoption as neither Stephen, the children, nor the placing agency were living or located in Hamilton County. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard stated that the case should have been transferred to an appropriate county of venue. The Supreme Court also found the lower court had erred by granting Stephen’s request to dispense with DCS’s statutory role in approving the adoption. Had hospital staff not notified DCS, they would have not known about the adoption.
Finally, the Supreme Court addressed the lower court’s failure to completely comply with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. The ICPC is necessary when children are sent to live with adoptive parents in another state. Certain conditions must be met for the placement of children outside of the state, so that complete and accurate information is provided in assessing the adoptive parents. When Indiana’s central Compact office contacted New Jersey’s Compact office to evaluate Stephen’s suitability, he declined to participate saying he was an Indiana resident, which was inconsistent with evidence and information showing he was a New Jersey resident for ten years. There are no records of a New Jersey home study being completed or submitted to the adoption court saying the adoption would or wouldn’t be in the best interest of the children.
Chief Justice Shepard wrote that it is appropriate for Indiana to retain jurisdiction over the twins because of the compact. The justices reversed the final order of for lack of compliance and remanded the case to the adoption court with directions to comply with the ICPC and thereafter issue a further judgment accordingly. Stephen retains preliminary custody pending completion of the court’s directive and any further orders.
In_the_Matter_of_the_Adoption_of_Infants_H.pdf
April 8th, 2009 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Family Law
This audio interview introduces us to three sister, Megan, Courtney and Rachel, who were caught up in their parents’ divorce conflict. This direct child’s perspective reveals the emotional damage inflicted as a result of parental fighting. The interview highlights how the adults’ anger and grief makes them sometimes lose sight. Their focus on wrangling over issues such as holidays and parenting time prevents them from understanding the destructiveness of their behavior. Tearful emotion is evident in the children’s voices as they discuss how the joy of holidays and birthdays has been taken from them. Compelling information for divorcing parents and family law professionals.
http://www.uptoparents.org/parentscorner/html_4_video/ThreeSisters.html
Special thanks to Charlie Asher and http://www.uptoparents.org for use of this material.
April 6th, 2009 | Posted by Leah | Posted in Family Law
The Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding a question of custody between a grandparent and biological parent. In the case In Re the Matter of the Paternity of K.I., by grandmother and next friend, J.I., v. J.H., No. 13S05-0805-JV-213, the critical issue centered on the standard a trial court should apply in a ruling on a petition to modify custody where a child is in the custody of a third party. The case also examined the presumption in favor of the natural parent in a modification proceeding.
Custody of the child, K.I. had been granted to the child’s grandmother, J.I., in whose care the child had been more for than 18 months. During that time, the child’s father, J.H. exercised parenting time. Subsequently, J.H.’s petition to modify custody was granted and the grandmother was awarded visitation consistent with the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. J.I. appealed the ruling, asserting that the court abused its discretion in awarding custody to J.H. Father cross-appealed the visitation granted to J.I.
The Court of Appeals reversed the custody award and remanded the case for determination on the parental presumption issue and to determine if modification was in the child’s best interest. The appellate court also indicated that if custody was awarded to father J.H. on remand, the trial court had to determine under which application grandmother should have visitation.
Indiana’s Supreme Court found that a natural parent seeking to modify custody has a minimal burden to show it is in the best interest of the child. If a natural parent meets the minimal burden, then it is up to the third party (in this case grandmother) to prove that the best interests of the child are to remain in the custody of the third party. J.I. failed to meet this burden of proof, and the Supreme Court affirmed modification of custody to father. The high court also reversed grandmother’s visitation, stating that it should have been determined according to the Grandparent Visitation Act, not the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines.