Indiana folks - Oppurtunity for Additional parenting time DEFINED

[wysiwyg]

The "babysitting" clause in the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines is just the type of area where such hay can be made. The clause provides:  
When it becomes necessary that a child be cared for by a person other than a parent or a family member, the parent needing the child care shall first offer the other parent the opportunity for additional parenting time.
Straightforward, no? No. "Family members" in my experience have included step-parents (reasonable), grandmothers, great-grandmothers, siblings, nieces, distant cousins, etc.  You get the picture.  So long as the custodial parent can find someone, anyone related to them to watch the kids, the non-custodial parent gets no extra time.
 
Well, in  Greg Shelton v. Alaina Alice Shelton, dad called foul, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court (very rare in domestic litigation) and ruled that the term "family member" is limited to relatives living in the custodial parent's home.  This is good clarification, because at least now we know (at least until the Supreme Court gets a-hold of it).  

(found on Kempblog.com)
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10120502mgr.pdf

[wysiwyg]

The "babysitting" clause in the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines is just the type of area where such hay can be made. The clause provides:  
When it becomes necessary that a child be cared for by a person other than a parent or a family member, the parent needing the child care shall first offer the other parent the opportunity for additional parenting time.
Straightforward, no? No. "Family members" in my experience have included step-parents (reasonable), grandmothers, great-grandmothers, siblings, nieces, distant cousins, etc.  You get the picture.  So long as the custodial parent can find someone, anyone related to them to watch the kids, the non-custodial parent gets no extra time.
 
Well, in  Greg Shelton v. Alaina Alice Shelton, dad called foul, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court (very rare in domestic litigation) and ruled that the term "family member" is limited to relatives living in the custodial parent's home.  This is good clarification, because at least now we know (at least until the Supreme Court gets a-hold of it).  

(found on Kempblog.com)
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10120502mgr.pdf