Topics

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.

Hi.

I took the child to a clinic to see a doc. Mother has the medical insurance info and will not provide it to me or the clinic. I had to pay full price.

Any suggestions on how to get the insurance info?

The court order says that mother will keep father informed of all medical, educational, spiritual ...etc... which she does not.  

The medical history of child ends 8 years ago in that city. I know that doctors have been seen but there is no record. Its as in an alias is being used.

Thanks in advance...

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2004/reports/prelim_access_visitation_grants/

THIS IS A MUST READ!

Child Access and Visitation Grants:

C. Enabling Legislation

The "Grants to States for Access and Visitation" Program was authorized by Congress through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The overall goal of the program is to:

"...enable states to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents' access to and visitation of their children...".

States are directed to accomplish this goal through the provision of services including, but not limited to:
mediation (mandatory and voluntary);
counseling;
education (e.g., parent education);
development of parenting plans;
visitation enforcement:
monitoring or supervised visitation
neutral drop-off and/or pick-up; and
development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

...
Chart H: Courts the Major Source of Referral for Service

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2004/reports/prelim_access_visitation_grants/

Early spring -  case management conference for chronic visitation abuse, the judge told CP One more bump in the road...several times. Then said, One more bump in the road and NCP gets 2 extra weeks visitation during the summer.

Next hearing - Visitation was being denied that very day we were in court.

CP was a no-show.

CP's lawyer took me to a back room and started drafting an order he said was an agreement to mediate and a few other things (everything in his clients best interest)

I returned to the courtroom - to the clerk and filed motions to reconsider emergency petition to reopen and modify final order regarding child custody that included a specific visit order that the police said is enforcable when the old one is not. Also a motion to dismiss the lawyers motion to dismiss my other pleadings.

The lawyer left the room several times, (I guess to call CP and get her there.)

The hearing was held up until CP arrived 1.5 hours late.

When she arrived, I told the judge that the first week of summer visit was being denied as we were standing there. The judge began making new summer schedule that reduced my time by 2 days. I reminded him of his consequences for one more bump in the road. I asked when I would have the 2 extra weeks for the present visit denial. He looked at me and shook his head, no.

I asked for him to find CP in contempt that day over visit being denied in his presence. Answer - no.

A 3 hour hearing was scheduled for late summer. Neither the lawyer or I asked for a 3 hour hearing.

When we left the courtroom, CP's lawyer was frouning and shaking his head at CP...very disappointed looking.

I am confused.

Oh, today is father's day...I drove 100 miles to an empty house (no one home, not abandoned.)

MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE EMERGENCY PETITION TO REOPEN AND MODIFY FINAL ORDER REGARDING CHILD CUSTODY


On March 2007, Defendant presented to the Court an EMERGENCY PETITION TO REOPEN AND MODIFY FINAL ORDER REGARDING CHILD CUSTODY.

The purpose of the Petition was to obtain specific dates and times of visitation because Plaintiff abuses visitation and the *** Police Department and others refuse to enforce (720 ILCS 5/10 5.5) "Unlawful visitation interference" because the wording of the order is vague.

The police dept said they will continue to not enforce the law until the order contains specific dates and times. Officer **** gave Defendant an example of a specific schedule that he said would be enforceable.

Defendant prepared and presented a schedule in the March 2007 Petition to the Court that was said to be enforceable. The Court Denied the Petition.

Plaintiff, by oral motion, requested to reopen and modify the Final Order so that transfers would occur every other Friday at 5pm and Sundays at 6pm at her residence. The Court Granted Plaintiff's request.

Plaintiff then became successful to restrict Defendant and Child's Easter vacation to half of what was a 10 year status quo where Child was with her father all of Easter vacation and attended church to hear her grandfather's Easter service.

When Plaintiff realized that the Court was ruling in her favor, she requested the pickup time to be changed to every third Saturday. The Court denied that request.

A very important issue in this case is the chronic alienating and contumacious behavior of Plaintiff toward Defendant and Child.
"Contumacious conduct consists of "conduct calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct a court in its administration of justice or lessening the authority and dignity of the court." In re Marriage of Fuesting, 228 Ill. App. 3d 339, 349 (1992).

Plaintiff's requests to further restrict visitation made on March 2007 were unreasonable because:
1.   She is usually not home until after 5pm because of her work schedule.
2.   Before the modification, Defendant always allowed Child to stop at home after school anyway.
3.   The requests to further restrict visitation were one of many maneuvers to further alienate Defendant from Child made by Plaintiff over the years.
4.   It will be easier for Plaintiff to abuse visitation by concealing Child because Child will be alone at the residence for almost 2 hours after school. The abuse normally recurs when all pending court cases are concluded.
5.   Plaintiff regularly uses the transfers of Child at her residence to encounter and vent anger at Defendant in the presence of Child.
6.   Restricting visitation without proving that the current visitation is harmful violates Illinois statutes and case law.

"Where the proceeding is by a custodial parent to restrict or deny visitation, the burden is upon the custodial parent to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the visitation then provided endangers the welfare of the children." Griffiths v. Griffiths, 127 Ill. App. 3d 126, 129, 468 N.E.2d 482, 485, 82 Ill. Dec. 220 (1984). "...the court shall not restrict a parent's visitation rights unless it finds that the visitation would endanger seriously the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health.  750 ILCS 5/607(c) (West 1994). "The endangerment standard is an extraordinary finding (In re Marriage of Lombaer (1990), 200 Ill. App. 3d 712, 724, 558 N.E.2d 388) that is onerous, stringent, and rigorous." (In re Marriage of Diehl (1991), 221 Ill. App. 3d 410, 429, 582 N.E.2d 281; Ashby, 193 Ill. App. 3d at 378, 549 N.E.2d 923; In re Marriage of Blanchard (1987), 162 Ill. App. 3d 202, 207, 514 N.E.2d 1208.) "It is more stringent than the best interests standard, which is used to determine custody." In re Marriage of Woppel (1989), 178 Ill. App. 3d 781, 784, 533 N.E.2d 1002.

"...we note that our courts have always recognized that it is in the best interest of the children to maintain a healthy and close relationship with both parents, as well as other family members.  Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d at 327, 518 N.E.2d at 1045. For this reason, we must carefully consider the visitation rights of the noncustodial parent.  Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d at 327, 518 N.E.2d at 1045. Towards this end, it is also vital that trial courts be guided by the stated purpose of the Act to "secure the maximum involvement and cooperation of both parents regarding the physical, mental, moral and emotional well-being of the children during and after the litigation." (Emphasis added.) 750 ILCS 5/102(7)(West 1994); see also Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d at 328, 518 N.E.2d at 1046.

Plaintiff has not obeyed the Order to have Child ready to travel at 5pm, also Plaintiff was ordered to remain inside the house until Defendant was gone.

1.   Child is chronically late to leave. Usually from 15 to 45 minutes.
2.   Plaintiff approaches Defendant inside his car to vent anger and express redundant and harsh demands about her visitation requirements while under the 2007 admonishment of the Court to remain indoors during transfers.
3.   Plaintiff otherwise involves herself by approaching Defendant's car to stare at Defendant and Child until they leave or Child exits the car.
4.   Plaintiff arranged a part time job for Child on weekends. She had Child call Defendant to ask him if she could work instead of attend visitation.

"The appellate court affirmed. Noting that "ultimate responsibility" for compliance with the visitation order rests with the custodial parent, the appellate court held that the mother "cannot escape her duty to comply with the provisions of the decree by attempting to shift this burden to the discretion of her children or some other person..." Doggett, 51 Ill. App. 3d at 872.

On March 2007 the Court warned Plaintiff that if she did not strictly abide by the Order, the result would be for Defendant and Child to have 2 extra weeks of visitation together.

The modification has interfered with the 10 year status quo by:
1.   Restricting visitation by at least approximately 2 hours each weekend.
2.   Restricting visitation by not allowing for extended weekends. When school dismisses early and/or is not in session on days adjacent to visitation weekends, or not attended due to illness, that time was always added to visitation weekends.
3.   Restricting Defendant by inconvenience from participating in Child's schooling and extracurricular activities from the extent of previous involvement.
4.   Arriving in *************** 2 hours later (6-6:30pm) than usual greatly interferes with normal routine activities, i.e. suppertime, leisure time, homework time, bedtime.
5.   Transfers at Plaintiff's residence opposed to school have allowed Plaintiff to create stress at the beginning of visitation weekends for Defendant and Child. Child is always much more nervous and tense than she was when Defendant picked her up at school.

"The court may modify an order granting or denying visitation rights whenever modification would serve the best interest of the child; but the court shall not restrict a parent's visitation rights unless it finds that the visitation would endanger seriously the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health." Ill. Rev. Stat.1983, ch. 40, par. 607(c). "...and before restricting a parent's visitation privileges, the trial court must find that the visitation would seriously endanger the child's physical, mental, moral, or emotional health" (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 40, par. 607(c)). "Unless the court finds the occurrence of ongoing abuse as defined in Section 103 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 [750 ILCS 60/103], the court shall presume that the maximum involvement and cooperation of both parents regarding the physical, mental, moral, and emotional well-being of their child is in the best interest of the child..." 750 ILCS 5/602. Best Interest of Child.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this Court:
1.   Reverse the modification to the Custody Order of 1996 made on March 2007.
2.   Put into effect the specific visitation schedule proposed in the March 2007 Emergency Petition.
3.   Order Plaintiff to obey the visitation order.
4.   Order Plaintiff to not create or encourage activities that interfere with visitation.

Hi. Is anyone familiar with this?


TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > § 669b

§ 669b. Grants to States for access and visitation programs.


(a) In general
The Administration for Children and Families shall make grants under this section to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents' access to and visitation of their children, by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
(b) Amount of grant
The amount of the grant to be made to a State under this section for a fiscal year shall be an amount equal to the lesser of—
(1) 90 percent of State expenditures during the fiscal year for activities described in subsection (a) of this section; or
(2) the allotment of the State under subsection (c) of this section for the fiscal year.
(c) Allotments to States
(1) In general
The allotment of a State for a fiscal year is the amount that bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants under this section for the fiscal year as the number of children in the State living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all States.
(2) Minimum allotment
The Administration for Children and Families shall adjust allotments to States under paragraph (1) as necessary to ensure that no State is allotted less than—
(A) $50,000 for fiscal year 1997 or 1998; or
(B) $100,000 for any succeeding fiscal year.
(d) No supplantation of State expenditures for similar activities
A State to which a grant is made under this section may not use the grant to supplant expenditures by the State for activities specified in subsection (a) of this section, but shall use the grant to supplement such expenditures at a level at least equal to the level of such expenditures for fiscal year 1995.
(e) State administration
Each State to which a grant is made under this section—
(1) may administer State programs funded with the grant, directly or through grants to or contracts with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit private entities;
(2) shall not be required to operate such programs on a statewide basis; and
(3) shall monitor, evaluate, and report on such programs in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

Hi.

In court, I am asking for a specific visitation schedule because no police officer will enforce the one we have saying it is too vague.

I told that to the judge that and he read the original and said everything was there for it to be enforcable. He refused the schedule I offered (which is basically the same as what we have but, with specific times and dates).

He refused to change anything other than transfers will take place at mom's at 5pm on Fridays and home at 6pm Sundays instead of at the school when it lets out, and returned home the night before school resumes. This is cutting me out of extended weekends.

What to do, what to do?

Thanks!

..

Hello,

I am asking for help in locating an outline for a specific visitation schedule. We are presently using a schedule that is over 10 years old. The custodial parent has been violating the order on a serial basis. Throughout the years, there has been over 6 orders issued for the custodial parent to obey the visitation order. The order has been violated many more times than that.

Our child is 13 years old. I live 50 miles away (I need to maintain the distance for reasons of safety). I have become disabled but am still functional enough to exercise visitation, or parenting time :)

Thanks in advance!

My BF has terminal cancer with 1-2 months to live. Amazingly, he is up and about. He loves his only grand child very much but rarely sees her. We had plans to be together this weekend.

I usually pick BD up at school because if I don't, BM will hide her from me. When BD did not come out of the school, I call the office and they say that BM removed her early but did not know why or at what time.

No one could be found or would answer any of their phones.

I go to the police station to explain the situation to an officer. I asked him to do a welfare check and he refused.

The officer was aggressive and provocative and tried to play on my feelings.  

There is a copy of my court order and (720 ILCS 5/10-5.5) Sec. 10-5.5. "Unlawful visitation interference." on file in that station. I asked him if he had seen it. He said that the statute does not require him to do anything. He leaned to me with his hand in my face and told me not to tell him how to do his job.

He told me that I had been told already by another officer that I WAS REQUIRED BY THIS POLICE DEPARTMENT (or at least officers 1 and 2) to go to court and get a NEW order. He acted like I was in trouble with HIM for not obeying. He continued to test me to see how far he could intimidate me. (If these cops are like this to everyone, that community is not safe and is probably being exploited)

I told the cop that the judge said that the order is good for 18-21 years as is. He ignored me.

He went on to say that my daughter (12 years old) is getting old enough to decide where she is going to be and there is nothing I or anyone can do about it.

When I left, the cops face was red and he was very emotional. It was a very unpleasant and disturbing experience for me as well. I was afraid for my safety.

The police there were always very nice until about the last 3 or 4 years. I don't feel like they would protect me or my daughter there anymore.

The police have effectivly become a barrier to the enforcement of law.

Any advice or kind words?

Hi. While waiting for my child to be released from detention last week, I thought it would be a good time to see the principle. While in his office, he told be that one more problem will result in a Saturday Detention. I asked him if a saturday detention were to fall on my weekend, if he really expected me to drive 100 miles and wait in the parking lot for 4 hours while my child serves time. He said that I can go do whatever I want during that time. I asked him if there was an alternative to a saturday detention. He said that if the assigned detention is not served, a 1 day suspension will follow. He said that the only excuse to miss the detention is a death in the family of a doctors excuse for illness. That "trips out of town" is not an excuse.

I said that I do not feel that Court Ordered Visitation falls into any of those catagories.

The Statute "Unlawful visitation interference" states:

"Every person who, in violation of the visitation provisions of a court order relating to child custody, detains or conceals a child with the intent to deprive another person of his or her rights to visitation shall be guilty of unlawful visitation interference."

and,

(g) It is an affirmative defense that:
      (1) a person or lawful custodian committed the act  to protect the child from imminent physical harm, provided that the defendant's belief that there was physical harm imminent was reasonable and that the defendant's conduct in withholding visitation rights was a reasonable response to the harm believed imminent;
 
        (2) the act was committed with the mutual consent of all parties having a right to custody and visitation of the child; or
 
        (3) the act was otherwise authorized by law.

I said that if I was able to see my child more than 4 days/month and lived closer that I might not mind a saturday detention.

I told him that I hope his efforts to control the children are being met with success.

My question, Is saturday detention legal when I do not agree to it?

Illinois
•   In re Violetta 210 III.App.3d 521, 568 N.E2d 1345, 154 III.Dec. 896(Ill.App. I Dist Mar 07, 1991).
•   In re Marriage of Divelbiss v. Divelbiss, No. 2-98-0999 2nd District, Ill.(Appeal from Circ Crt of Du Page Cty No. 93-D-559) Oct 22, 1999.
•   Tetzlaff v. Tetzlaff, Civil Court of Cook County, Il., Domestic Relations Division, Cause No. 97D 2127, Mar 20, 2000.
•   Bates v. Bates 18th Judicial Circuit, Dupage County, IL Case No. 99D958, Jan 17, 2002.
o   Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.

Does anyone know if these decisions have been over-ruled recently?

I know that this is occurring, but having "proof" is difficult. I have no authority to have the child evaluated. I have asked the court to have the child evaluated for damages in two of my petitions.  Does anyone think the court might order the evaluation. I also asked for evaluations of the parents.

Hi.

I am getting ready to submit this motion to the court. The judge told me to ride it out until june to see how it goes. I only have 30 days to ask for a reconsideration.

Following is a rough draft of the motion i am preparing to submit.

Any comments or friendly (unofficial) advice on this is welcome.

Thanks in advance!


MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE EMERGENCY PETITION TO REOPEN AND MODIFY FINAL ORDER REGARDING CHILD CUSTODY

On March XX, 2007, Defendant presented to the Court an EMERGENCY PETITION TO REOPEN AND MODIFY FINAL ORDER REGARDING CHILD CUSTODY. The purpose of the petition was to get specific dates and times of visitation.

PD #1, PD #2, PD #3, PD #4., have refused to enforce (720 ILCS 5/10 5.5) Sec. 10 5.5. "Unlawful visitation interference" because the visitation schedule of Date, XXXX, does not contain specific dates and times when visitation is to occur.

Each police department said that an Order stating "every other weekend with the defendant" or, "half of such holiday." is not specific enough for them to enforce 720 ILCS 5/10 5.5. Specifically, the PD #1 told me not bother them again unless I have an Order that is worded with specific dates and times.

The example of a specific schedule given to Defendant by the PD #1 that was said to be enforceable is, "Weekend number 37, when school dismisses for the weekend until 7pm the night before school resumes from that weekend will be with the defendant."

The Court Denied the Defendant's Petition.

The Court then heard Plaintiff ask to modify the Order so that transfers of the child will be on Fridays at 5pm and Sundays at 6pm at the Plaintiffs residence every other weekend. Plaintiff stated it is in the best interest of the child to be able to take her book bag home on Fridays.

The Court Granted Plaintiff's request.

The modification has created several problems.
1.   It is in the child's best interest that the 10 year old routine of her father meeting her at school not be interfered with.
2.   It is in the child's best interest that she has her book bag during visitation so that her father may help her with homework.
3.   It is in the child's best interest that the bi-weekly casual contact between her father and school staff is not interfered with.
4.   Father is not able to speak with the child's principal or teachers during Friday detentions.
5.   Father is not able to participate in his child's extracurricular activities.
6.   Visitation with the non custodial parent is unduly reduced by approximately 2 hours each weekend.
   a. In the absence of abuse, maximum involvement of both parents is in the best interest of the child.
7.   For the past 10 years when school dismisses early and/or is not in session on day(s) adjacent to father's weekend, those days were always spent with him. The modification, for no good reason, will not allow the child to spend another extended weekend with her father as has been the norm for 10 years.
8.   On days when school dismisses early and/or is not in session on days adjacent to father's weekend, the child will be home alone until after 5pm on Fridays and/or Mondays.
9.   Plaintiff is usually not home until after 5pm because of her work schedule.
10.            Traveling after 5pm on Fridays cause the child to be transported in rush hour traffic and after dark during the winter.
11.   The modification is a maneuver to further alienate the child.
12.   It will be easier for Plaintiff to conceal the child from visitation.
13.    Before the modification, the child stopped at home after school anyway.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this Court:
1.   Reverse the modification to the Custody Order of Date, xxxx made on March xx, 2007.
2.   Put into effect the specific visitation schedule proposed in the Emergency Petition to Reopen and Modify Final Order Regarding Child Custody.

Hi,

I was in court the other day and heard we have to see a mediator. The judge approved the opposing atty's suggestion. That was the last I heard. There is no mention of it in the Order that was issued. What-tha-heck-am-I-supposed-to-do-now?

Thanks in advance

Hi.

Petitioned court to enforce visitation, for specific visitation, and modify visitation (asking for more time and make-up time).

Mom's answer to it all was to submit and request the court to sign off on a schedule that cuts our time by more than 50%... 1wknd/mo, 1 week in summer, almost no holiday time. There was no reason given.

I am prepared to tell the court that her proposed schedule is further evidence of her inability to encourage a close and continuing relationship.

I will die if I leave that court with reduced time as a result of me petitioning for enforcement of visitation.

from experience and the reading i have done, it creates a stressful environment for a child to talk much about how much you miss them.  no matter how much you feel it, you should try to refrain from telling about how stressful the situation is for you.  say you miss her once in the conversation. If stress appears to be a major factor, it stresses her.  

i guess that adults are supposed to be able to turn it off and on like a light no matter what hand we are dealt.

it would be an easy job to take money away from millionaires and then tell them that they will be fined if they act upset.