Messages

The case is an Illinois case, all parties live in Illinois.

I have questions regarding "(720 ILCS 5/10‑5.5) Sec. 10‑5.5. Unlawful visitation interference." This statute makes unlawful visitation interferrence a petty offence.

After readind the rules, I am hesitant to post my experience and questions because of Rule #7:

"7. Don't post facts regarding a criminal matter -- you may be waiving your right to remain silent as well as your right to maintain an attorney-client privilege. If you have a criminal matter, let me know and I may allow you to email me with your questions."

Question:

1. Am I allowed to post my experience and questions that are directly affected by the above cited Statute?

Thank you.

Q: Do we have to go to court if we agree on who should have custody?

A: Even if both of you agree on who should have custody, you should get an order from the court on your agreement. An order signed by the judge will protect each parent's rights and will allow a parent to enforce the order. The order should clearly state which parent will have custody, what type of custody was agreed to and the visitation schedule. The parents should present the agreed order to the judge.

http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=5005


This tells me that the court does not have power over people in this situation until it is given to them..

Yes, Illinois has jurisdiction IF you want them to make a decision regarding who has custody and visitation of the children.

I guess there is no way for me to make sense to you then.. I've tried both ways.

Mist, I think I recall having this discussion with a well known lawyer in this state. You are welcome to call him and discuss the issue if you please, just let me know if you want his contact info.

Anyway, here is something I found on the web:

How to object to personal jurisdiction.
* 735 ILCS 5/1-301. Before filing any other pleading, file a Special and Limited Appearance. WARNING: Any Appearance that is not a Special Appearance is a general Appearance.
* If the reason for your objection to the personal jurisdiction is not apparent from the papers already in the court file, the Special and Limited Appearance must be supported by an Affidavit setting out the reasons.
* Make certain you only pray that the Court determines it has no personal jurisdiction. If you request any other relief, you are submitting your client to the jurisdiction of the court and yourself to a possible malpractice claim. Do not pray for attorney's fees. Do not pray for such further or different relief as the court deems appropriate. Do not pray for a substitution of judge.
* If you win this motion, the case is over as far as your client is concerned.
* If you lose this motion, you have a horrible choice to make. Do you convert your Special and Limited Appearance to a general Appearance and participate in the case? (If you do, and a judgment is entered against your client, you can no longer appeal the jurisdictional issue).
* The other alternative is to not participate in the rest of the case, have a default judgment entered against your client and then appeal the jurisdictional issue at the conclusion of the case.

a court does not have jurisdiction over anyone and everyone that walks in there.

most of the time divorcing couples unwittingly relinquish jurisdiction of their children during the divorce process and the lawyers almost NEVER tell them that because of the wealth gained from contested custody issued.

Even just one parent (when the other is seeking the court's involvement)can object to the court exercising power over his child as a violation of the constitutional rights of himself and the child.

you really should not state your opinions as fact in a place like this.

Most of the stories on this board are from people who have had difficulties, yes. Most people don't go around talking about how smooth their lives are. They reach out when there is a problem.

Alot of people don't know it, but they can refuse to allow the court to make decisions concerning their children unless it is proven that they are in danger.

People essentially are ASKING the court to get involved with their children when they go there arguing about who will be where and when.

Get a divorce and refuse to discuss the children to not give the court jurisdiction if you are able.

Bless you both if you are capable of raising your children without getting the monsters involved. It is your right as Americans to raise your children as long as they are not endangered.

If you're getting divorced and the judge or one of the lawyers starts talking about your children (they see dollar signs). Say that you refuse to allow the court to even discuss them.

mist, you are misguided here.

you can get a divorce and refuse to give the court jusidtiction over your children. they will not be discussed.

Depending on the state, either parent may be able to refuse to let the court make decisions concering the raising of your children. That is a fundamental right under the US constitution. Never let them get involved one Tad, or else you give them jurisdiction over you all.

Depending on the state, either parent may be able to refuse to let the court make decisions concering the raising of your children. That is a fundamental right under the US constitution. Never let them get involved one Tad, or else you give them jurisdiction over you all.