DOCSLIB.ORG

Ocr Newsletter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ocr Newsletter Issue 2, 2008 OFFICE OF THE CHILD’ S REPRESENTATIVE Fall OCR NEWSLETTER OCR updates serve to Court Opinions inform OCR attorneys The summaries below highlight aspects of cases relevant to child representation, but they are neither official nor complete and other interested pro- court opinions. Decisions may be subject to multiple interpretations, and attorneys should consult with the original deci- fessionals of recent court sion prior to citing it. The full text of many of the following decisions can be accessed on the Colorado Court of Appeals decisions, studies, and website, http://www.courts.state.co.us/coa/coaindex.htm, or the Colorado Supreme Court website, http:// current events relating to www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm. If you are not able to access a decision online, please feel free to child advocacy, OCR ac- contact the OCR’s Staff Attorney, Sarah Ehrlich, (303-860-1517, ext. 1), for assistance. tivities, GAL activities, and resources and events that may be beneficial to U.S. Supreme Court you or your clients. Please Giles v. California, 128 S. Ct. 2678, (2008).— Giles was convicted of first degree murder after shooting his feel free to email the OCR girlfriend, Avie. There was a history of domestic violence between Giles and Avie. Avie had made state- with any feedback or in- ments to police three weeks before her death regarding a domestic violence incident where Giles threatened formation that you wish to kill her. The trial court admitted the statements into evidence under a provision of California law that to have posted in the next update. permits out-of-court statements describing the threat of physical injury on a declarant when the declarant is unavailable at trial and the prior statements are trustworthy. Giles was convicted and while awaiting his appeal the US supreme court decided Crawford v. Washington. The California Court of Appeals held that admitting Avie’s statements at trial did not violate the confrontation clause as construed by Crawford be- cause Crawford recognized a doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Forfeiture by wrongdoing applies only when the defendant engages in the wrongdoing that was intended in and resulted in the declarant being unavailable to testify as a witness. Giles forfeited his right to confront Avie because he murdered her and this Inside this issue: intentional criminal act made Avie unavailable to testify. The California Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded Giles’ conviction because Justice Scalia found that the doctrine of forfeiture was not established at the time of the founding of the Bill of Rights, therefore the theory of forfei- ture by wrongdoing is not a founding-era exception to the confrontation right. The court dissected the his- Court Opinions 1 tory of the doctrine and looked to common law where the rule was only applied when the defendant engaged in conduct that was designed to prevent (by detaining) the witness from testifying. At common law, the Colorado Opinions 2 exception only applied when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testify- ing, and the manner in in which the rule was applied demonstrates that ―unconfronted testimony would not be admitted without a showing that the defendant intended to prevent a witness from testifying.‖ When the 5-6 Legislative Update Supreme Court approved the doctrine in 1997 through the FRE, the comment states ―the exception applies only if the defendant has in mind the particular purpose of making the witness available.‖ Editor’s note: I included this case because of the implications in cases involving domestic violence. The dissent by Justice Conferences and 7 Training Souter notes that domestic violence cases are susceptible to intimidation of the victim to ensure that they will not testify at trial, and the concern remains that the Confrontation Clause may provide the criminal with a windfall. Resources 7 Articles 8 Awards and 8 Recognition/OCR in Brief OCR NEWSLETTER Page 2 Colorado Court of Appeals Cases In the Interest of L.O.L., No. 08CA0402, October 30, 2008—The department filed a motion to terminate parental rights of L.O.L. The court denied the motion. The child, through the GAL appealed the order. The court of appeals first addresses the issue of mootness because the child is now in the mother’s custody, and at the most recent review hearing the parties agreed to keep child with mother. The court agreed with the mother and department that the issue of termination was moot, because child was now residing with mother, and no party believed that the child should not remain with mother. Since no party now sought to terminate parental rights, the decision of the court will have no effect on the case. The court did not ad- dress the issues that the GAL raised on appeal: 1) the trial court’s decision to rely on their own experience and not expert testimony; 2) judicial notice of matters not in evidence; 3) abuse of discretion in admitting evidence and ex parte communications with the department of social services; 4) failure to make findings regarding statutory criteria. The court focused on the burden of proof, and reversed as to that issue since the trial court denied the motion to terminate because it did not have evidence to terminate using the ―beyond a reasonable doubt,‖ standard which is the proper standard under the Indian Child Welfare Act Reminder! (IWCA). The record did not demonstrate the child was a member or eligible to be a member of any tribe, therefore, the trial court should have used the ―clear and convincing evidence‖ standard. Notice was sent The OCR has a out in accordance with ICWA, and no tribe indicated the child was an Indian Child as of the date of the termination hearing. The court of appeals reversed the court’s order as to the ICWA matter. new address In re the Matter of the Petition of C.A.O., No. 07CA1033, July 10, 2008 -In re the Matter of the Petition 1580 Logan Street of C.A.O., an indigent, incarcerated father appealed the court’s denial of his request to be appointed coun- sel when the child’s stepfather initiated a stepparent adoption proceeding and sought to terminate the fa- Suite 340 ther’s parental rights. While an indigent parent does have the right to appointed counsel in a state-initiated dependency and neglect proceeding, ―[t]here is no explicit right to counsel in a stepparent adoption pro- ceeding.‖The court held that the trial court should have used the test provided in C.S., 83 P.3d 627, 636 Denver, CO (Colo. 2004) to determine if this particular indigent father was entitled to be appointed counsel on account of his indigency. C.S. provides that the court must consider whether: the parent’s interest is an extremely 80203 important one; (2) the State shares with the parent an interest in a correct decision, has a relatively weak pecuniary interest, and . has a possibly stronger interest in informal procedures; and (3) the complexity of the proceeding and the incapacity of the uncounselled parent could be . great enough to make the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the parent’s rights insupportably high. The court of appeals remanded the case so that the trial court could use the above factors to determine whether appointment was necessary in that specific case since the trial court must answer this question first, subject to appellate review. That being said, the court stated in dictum that (1) parents have an important interest in opposing termination of their parental rights and (2) while the state is not a party to the case in a stepparent adoption proceeding, it does play an ―integral part of the process because only the state can officially decree termination of the parental relationship.‖ OCR NEWSLETTER Page 3 Colorado Court of Appeals Cases In the Interest of K.W.S., No. 07CA0667, July 24, 2008. In the Interest of K.W.S., the Colorado Court of Appeals held that it had no jurisdic- tion to review an unrevoked deferred judgment and sentence agreement. The defendant entered a one-year deferred adjudication agreement where he agreed that the court could ―impose any conditions of supervision that it deem[ed] appropriate that are stipulated to by the juvenile and the district attorney.‖ Among these conditions was the requirement that the juvenile submit to genetic marker testing. The juvenile subsequently mo- tioned for the trial court to defer or stay this requirement. The trial court denied the motion and the juvenile appealed. On appeal, the court held that the deferred judgment agreement was not subject to direct appellate review until it was revoked because an appeals court’s authority to grant post-conviction remedies is limited to instances where a conviction has been entered; a deferred judgment and sentence, by definition, is not a con- viction. It is only where that deferred judgment has been revoked that a conviction is entered and the deferred judgment and sentence agreement becomes appealable. Further, ―a trial court’s authority to impose supervisory conditions as part of a deferred judgment and sentence agreement extends only as far as the parties stipulate . [t]herefore, the unavailability of post-conviction review merely preserves the parties’ stipulations.‖ In re the Marriage of Rozzi, No. 07CA0467, June 12, 2008, the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed a post-dissolution of marriage appeal. The petitioner claimed that the court committed reversible error when it appointed a parenting coordinator when there was a claim of domestic vio- lence. She also claimed that error occurred when the appointed parenting coordinator was given special master’s powers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parenting Coordination Sample Local Rule
    PARENTING COORDINATION SAMPLE LOCAL RULE Rule 1. Parenting Coordination. Introduction The County Court adopts Rule 1 effective _____________________. 1.01 Definitions As used in this rule: (A) Domestic abuse “Domestic abuse” means a pattern of abusive and controlling behavior that may include physical violence; coercion; threats; intimidation; isolation; or emotional, sexual, or economic abuse. (B) Domestic violence “Domestic violence” has the same meaning as in R.C. 3113.31(A)(1). (C) Parenting coordination “Parenting coordination” means a child-focused dispute resolution process ordered by the Court to assist parties in implementing a parental rights and responsibilities or companionship time order using assessment, education, case management, conflict management, coaching, or decision-making. “Parenting coordination” is not mediation subject to R.C. Chapter 2710, R.C. 3109.052, or Sup.R. 16 nor arbitration subject to R.C. Chapter 2711 or Sup.R. 15. (D) Parenting coordinator “Parenting coordinator” means an individual appointed by the Court to conduct parenting coordination. 1.02 Purpose This rule allows for the resolution of disputes related to parental rights and responsibilities or companionship time orders outside of court. 1.03 Scope The Court may appoint a parenting coordinator upon the filing of a parental rights and responsibilities or companionship time order. 1 1.04 Limitations of Parenting Coordinator A parent coordinator may not determine the following: (A) Whether to grant, modify, or terminate a protection order; (B) The terms and conditions of a protection order; (C) The penalty for violation of a protection order; (D) Changes in the designation of the primary residential parent or legal guardian; (E) Changes in the primary placement of a child.
    [Show full text]
  • Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Separated Parents
    1 Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Separated Parents Greg Kovacs, LMFT Upstate Marriage and Family Therapy, PLLC Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist Parenting Coordinator M.S., Marriage and Family Therapy, University of New Hampshire M.Phil.., Child and Family Studies, Syracuse University M.S., Data Analytics, University of Maryland Ph.D., Child and Family Studies, Syracuse University (est. 2021) ⚫ www.gregkovacs.com ⚫ https://www.facebook.com/upstatemft 2 3 Welcome Message At the UMFT Parenting Coordination Program we use the latest research on the effects of high-conflict divorce and separation on children to coordinate with parents, children, attorneys, courts, and other providers to create and enforce a comprehensive and effective coparenting plan Our Vision: We Will Empower Parents To Communicate, Negotiate, And The UMFT Resolve Differences To Help Their Children Thrive Parenting Our Philosophy: Building On The Foundations Of State-of- The-science Research, We Will Always Be Driven To Understand The Complexities Of Couple Coordination And Family Interactions To Help Parents Overcome Challenging Patterns Of Program Thought, Emotion, And Behavior 4 A Non-confidential, Child-centered Process For High-conflict Divorced Parents Parenting A Form Of Dispute Resolution For Parents In Which Mediation Would Be Inappropriate Or Coordination Ineffective Due To High Levels Of Conflict is . Hybrid Role Performed By An Impartial Third Party • High Rates of Litigation and Re-litigation • Parents are Overly Focused On Their Own Needs •
    [Show full text]
  • The Experiences of Parenting Coordinators Working with Couples Engaged in Intimate Partner Violence Ann M
    Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 2017 The experiences of parenting coordinators working with couples engaged in intimate partner violence Ann M. Ordway Walden University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations Part of the Counseling Psychology Commons This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Walden University College of Counselor Education & Supervision This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by Ann Ordway has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made. Review Committee Dr. Mark Stauffer, Committee Chairperson, Counselor Education and Supervision Faculty Dr. Stacee Reicherzer, Committee Member, Counselor Education and Supervision Faculty Dr. Laura Haddock, University Reviewer, Counselor Education and Supervision Faculty Chief Academic Officer Eric Riedel, Ph.D. Walden University 2017 Abstract Experiences of Parenting Coordinators Working With Couples Engaged in Intimate Partner Violence by Ann M. Ordway MA/EdS, Seton Hall University, 2007 JD, Seton Hall University School of Law, 1990 BA, Seton Hall University, 1987 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Counselor Education and Supervision Walden University April 2017 Abstract In families where parents present with intimate partner violence dynamics, courts routinely impose restraints restricting communications between those parents.
    [Show full text]
  • Oklahoma Statutes Title 43. Marriage and Family
    OKLAHOMA STATUTES TITLE 43. MARRIAGE AND FAMILY §43-1. Marriage defined. ............................................................................................................................... 8 §43-2. Consanguinity. .................................................................................................................................... 8 §43-3. Who may marry. ................................................................................................................................. 8 §43-3.1. Recognition of marriage between persons of same gender prohibited. ....................................... 10 §43-4. License required. ............................................................................................................................... 10 §43-5. Application - Fees - Issuance of license and certificate. ................................................................... 10 §43-5.1. Premarital counseling. ................................................................................................................... 11 §43-6. License - Contents. ............................................................................................................................ 12 §43-7. Solemnization of marriages. ............................................................................................................. 13 §43-7.1. Refusal to solemnize or recognize marriage by religious organization officials - Definitions. ....... 14 §43-8. Endorsement and return of license. ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1- in the United States District Court for the District Of
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS KARIM N. JALLAD, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-2843 RONNIE M. BEACH and KATIE B. LECLUYSE, Defendants. MEMORANDUM & ORDER This matter comes before the court upon defendant Katie B. LeCluyse’s Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 7) and defendant Ronnie M. Beach’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. 9). I. Background On December 30, 2016, plaintiff Karim N. Jallad filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of various rights. The facts of plaintiff’s complaint involve the state court divorce proceedings between plaintiff and his former wife Cyntia Espada. Defendant LeCluyse, a therapist at Behavioral Health Specialists, was hired by plaintiff and Ms. Espada prior to their divorce, to help their minor daughter understand plaintiff’s frequent travel. Plaintiff’s work as a chemistry professor in Kuwait requires frequent travel. During the divorce proceedings, the state court appointed defendant Ronnie M. Beach to act as a parenting coordinator. Plaintiff brings four claims. Count I alleges that defendant Beach violated plaintiff’s fundamental and due process rights by deciding to: suspend plaintiff’s parenting schedule, eliminating two overnight visits with his daughter; -1- shorten plaintiff’s Skype sessions with his daughter to two 20-minute sessions per week; and allowing Ms. Espada to take their daughter to Puerto Rico for one week, and Dallas for five days.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Parenting Coordination
    Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines for Parenting Coordination © 2019 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines for Parenting Coordination Developed by The AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination 2017-19 Foreword The Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (“Guidelines”) are the product of the interdisciplinary AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (“Task Force”). These Guidelines build on two previous AFCC task forces, which produced the report, “Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues”1 and the first set of AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination.2 It is noteworthy that, as the parenting coordination model has been implemented in various jurisdictions, there has been variation in the authority of a parenting coordinator (“PC”), the stage of the legal process when a PC is appointed, the various functions of a PC, the qualifications and training of a PC, and the best practices for the role. In 2017, then AFCC President Annette Burns recognized the need to update the 2005 Guidelines to reflect developments that had occurred worldwide since the Guidelines were first promulgated. She appointed the current Task Force on Parenting Coordination (“Task Force”). Task Force members met monthly via videoconference and in person at AFCC Conferences in Boston, Massachusetts (June 2017), Milwaukee, Wisconsin (November 2017), Washington, D.C. (June 2018) and Denver, Colorado (November 2018). While revising the 2005 Guidelines, the Task Force identified issues in need of exploration: use of technology in parenting coordination; parenting coordination when intimate partner violence (IPV) is an issue; diversity awareness and responsiveness; and, the evolution and impact of legal directives since the emergence of parenting coordination. To inform the process, two subcommittees were formed.
    [Show full text]
  • Section V., Parenting Coordination
    In the Indiana Supreme Court Cause No. 94S00-1602-MS-86 Order Amending Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines Under the authority vested in this Court to provide by rule for the procedure employed in all courts of this state and this Court’s inherent authority to supervise the administration of all courts of this state, Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines are amended by the adoption of Section V as follows (deletions shown by striking and new text shown by underlining): . SECTION V. PARENTING COORDINATION A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Parenting coordination is a court ordered, child-focused dispute resolution process in which a Parenting Coordinator is appointed to assist high conflict parties by accessing and managing conflicts, redirecting the focus of the parties to the needs of the child, and educating the parties on how to make decisions that are in the best interest of the child. 2. A Parenting Coordinator is an individual appointed by a Court to conduct parenting coordination. 3. “High conflict parties” are parties who have had ongoing disagreements and conflict. The disagreements and conflict center on the parties’ inability to communicate and resolve issues regarding the care of the child, a parenting time schedule, or any other issues that have adversely affected the child. 4. Nothing in this guideline limits, supersedes, or divests the court of its exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues of parenting time, custody, and child support. 5. These guidelines apply to all Parenting Coordinator appointments made after the effective date of the adoption of these guidelines and do not modify an existing parenting coordination order.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Parenting Coordination
    Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines for Parenting Coordination © 2005 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines for Parenting Coordination Developed by The AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination May 2005 Foreword The Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (“Guidelines”) are the product of the interdisciplinary AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (“Task Force”). First appointed in 2001 by Denise McColley, AFCC President 2001-02, the Task Force originally discussed creating model standards of practice. At that time, however, the Task Force agreed that the role was too new for a comprehensive set of standards. The Task Force instead investigated the issues inherent in the new role and described the manner in which jurisdictions in the United States that have used parenting coordination resolved those issues. The report of the Task Force’s (2001-2003) two- year study was published in April of 2003 as “Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues.”1 The Task Force was reconstituted in 2003 by Hon. George Czutrin, AFCC President 2003-04. President Czutrin charged the Task Force with developing model standards of practice for parenting coordination for North America and named two Canadian members to the twelve-member task force. The Task Force continued investigating the use of the role in the United States and in Canada and drafted Model Standards for Parenting Coordination after much study, discussion and review of best practices in both the United States and Canada. AFCC posted the Model Standards on its website, afccnet.org, and the TaskForce members also widely distributed them for comments. The Task Force received many thoughtful and articulate comments which were carefully considered in making substantive and editorial changes based upon the feedback that was received.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Court of Common Pleas Family Court Division Stark County, Ohio
    Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Court of Common Pleas Family Court Division Stark County, Ohio STARK COUNTY FAMILY COURT LOCAL RULES OF COURT RULE 9. GENERAL RULE 10. COSTS RULE 11. SERVICE AND NOTICE RULE 12. PLEADINGS AND FILING REQUIREMENTS RULE 13. DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN RULE 14. CONDUCT OF HEARING AND TRIALS RULE 15. MOTIONS RULE 16. ALLOCATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RULE 17. GUARDIAN AD LITEM RULE 18. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (INCLUDING ORDERS WHICH MODIFY PRIOR ORDERS) RULE 19. JUVENILE CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN RULE 20. CIVIL PROTECTION ORDERS RULE 21. MEDIATION RULE 22. JUVENILE COMPETENCY PROCEEDINGS RULE 23 SPECIALIZED DOCKET (DRUG COURT) RULE 24. PARENTING COORDINATION RULE 25. ELECTRONICALLY PRODUCED TICKETS RULE 26. ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS Appendix RULES OF COURT RULE 9 GENERAL 9.01 Name of Division The Domestic Relations and Juvenile Court shall be severally identified as the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, Family Court Division 9.02 The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, the Superintendence Rules of the Supreme Court, and the Ohio Rules of Juvenile Procedure shall apply in all actions where applicable. The Rules of the General Division of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas shall apply to all proceedings before this Court, except to the extent that those General Division Rules conflict with these rules, or to the extent that the General Division Rules are inapplicable. RULE 10 COSTS 10.01 A deposit shall be required to secure court costs in all Family Court cases. 10.02 Waiver of Deposit: Waiver of Costs The Court may, by endorsement on the pleading, waive the deposit for costs, upon good cause shown and upon the filing with the Clerk of an affidavit, identifying assets and earnings of the party, together with a statement that counsel has received no fees.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is an Agreement for Parenting Coordination Services
    THIS IS AN AGREEMENT FOR PARENTING COORDINATION SERVICES BETWEEN: FN1 LN1 -and- FN2 LN2 -and- CANADIAN CO-PARENTING CENTRES, CCPC PRINCIPLES 1. The parents, FN1 LN1 and FN2 LN2, acknowledge that child(ren) will benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents, that parental conflict will impact negatively on the child(ren)'s adjustment and development, and that every effort should be made to keep the child(ren) out of the parent's disputes. 2. Parenting coordination is a child-focused dispute resolution process and the parents agree to voluntarily enter into this Agreement, and to be bound by it, because of a desire to: a) de-escalate parental conflict; b) prioritize the child(ren)'s best interests; c) promote the child(ren)'s optimum adjustment; d) resolve issues/disputes in a timely and cost efficient manner; e) benefit from the direction of a qualified professional. APPOINTMENT OF THE PARENTING COORDINATOR 3. The parents/parties hereby retain the CANADIAN CO-PARENTING CENTRES to provide parenting coordination services, as defined by this agreement, and as described in Schedule "A" of this Agreement, and as generally understood in the professional literature and practice. The Canadian Co-Parenting Centre's primary representative will be FNPC LNPC (the parenting coordinator). (Canadian Co-Parenting Centres, CCPC, is a registered charitable organization and is hereafter referred to as the "Agency".) 4. No party is under any duress or undue influence of the other party and they are voluntarily entering into this Agreement. Each party has had the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice prior to signing this Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Relations Division Local Rules.Pdf
    DELAWARE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RANDALL D. FULLER, JUDGE Adopted April 10, 2017 Amended October 7, 2018 1 RULE 1 COMPLIANCE WITH OHIO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE .......................................... 7 RULE 2 PLEADINGS, MOTIONS, AND ORDERS ............................................................................. 7 2.01 Form ......................................................................................................................................... 7 2.02 Initial filings and affidavits. ...................................................................................................... 8 2.03 Court exhibit file. ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.04 Mutual restraining order. .......................................................................................................... 9 2.05 Case management plan. .......................................................................................................... 10 2.06 Leave to plead. ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.07 Post-decree motions. ............................................................................................................... 11 2.08 Motions and orders. ................................................................................................................ 11 2.09 Notice of Intent to Relocate.
    [Show full text]
  • Superior Court of California, County of Marin
    MARIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FOR COURT USE ONLY 3501 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 4988 San Rafael, CA 94913-4988 In Re the Marriage of: PETITIONER: and RESPONDENT: STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CASE NUMBER: APPOINTMENT OF PARENTING COORDINATOR PRINCIPLES 1. The parents acknowledge that their child(ren) will benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents that continued parental conflict will generally negatively impact their child(ren)'s adjustment, and that every effort should be made to keep the child(ren) out of the middle of their parents' disputes and communications. 2. The parents agree voluntarily to enter into this Agreement because of a desire to: a. de-escalate parental conflict to which the child(ren) are exposed b. focus on their child(ren)'s needs and best interests c. promote their child(ren)'s optimum adjustment d. resolve issues and disputes between the parents concerning the clarification, implementation, modification and/or adaptation of the court-ordered parenting plan through the informal process described in this order in a timely and cost efficient manner without litigation e. benefit from the direction of a qualified professional chosen to serve as the Parenting Coordinator 3. Parenting Coordination is a child-focused dispute resolution process that combines parent education, dispute assessment, facilitated negotiations, conflict and communication management, and, when parents are unable to resolve their parenting disputes with the Parenting Coordinator's assistance, recommendations or decision making on issues that are specified in this Stipulation and Order. The ultimate goal is to help parents resolve disputed or difficult issues amicably and efficiently on their own, without having to involve the Parenting Coordinator or the adversarial process.
    [Show full text]