S.P.A.R.C.

Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Author Topic: Child Ditches Me - Cops Are Barriers  (Read 6030 times)

Finnchadh

  • New Arrival
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: You are misinterpreting the law
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2006, 09:02:29 AM »
Ok – just how hard do you want to press this?  While I do not have access to the code you quoted – believe you live in the State of IL – in Ga contempt is either criminal or civil depending on its application.  Also in questions of probably cause – if you are authorized visitation and denied that visitation consistent with the statute you quoted; it may be up to you to establish probable cause.  This might be accomplished by a sworn affidavit [stating that this is your time for visitation and you have not agreed to allow the other parent to hive this time and a certified copy of your DD] presented to the Police Department and swear out a complaint consistent with that code section.  If the police refuse to allow you to make such a complaint; consider employing the services of a Private Investigator to act as a witness or the services of an attorney as an officer of the court to substantiate your submissions.  If the police refuse to act consistent with the provisions of the statute –[ basically give the offender a ticket with a date to appear in court – this is analogous to a speeding ticket where the officer as witness to the offence of speeding is making an allegation against you as the speeder ] -  and you can document their failure or refusal – you might consider making a 18 USC 242 complaint to the FBI or Assistant US Attorney’s office.  Like I said – how hard do you want to press this issue?  BTW I am not an attorney and you should not consider this legal advice.  I am encouraging you to study, listen, ask questions, think and then - make a decision.    

Ignorance is a prison – knowledge and understanding are your keys to freedom.


Samson2005

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: You are misinterpreting the law
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2006, 02:41:05 PM »
The judge that issued the visitation order says that it is absolutely enforcable. What judge is going to issue orders that are unenforcable? What would be the motivation?

I spent $75,000 for an order that isn't worth the paper it's written on? and now I need to spend more to fix it? Did anybody else get a whiff of that?

Why do I need to spend my money to see that the public law is enforced?

I want my money back for being issued an order that is unenforcable. Does anybody know how I would go about getting that done?

Seriously, I would like to press this issue all the way through. This is a disgrace to everyone.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 is very interesting. I have been in contact with representatives about this and they choose to ignore it as well.

MixedBag

  • Global Moderator
  • SuperHero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • Karma: 155
  • That's Me...MixedBag
    • View Profile
    • http://www.doilyboutique.com
RE: You are misinterpreting the law
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2006, 07:44:16 PM »
Your order has been signed by a judge in civil or family court.

Therefore, it has to be enforced in a civil court.

Title 18 -- and this is just because I don't have time to look it up -- is probably a CRIMINAL code reference and that can be enforced by police officers.

Your order is not public law.

When state codes refer to "custody" in criminal statutes, it's when "other than parents" interfere with the parent's rights to maintain custody of their children.  Like when a kidnapper takes them, or another person just plain ole detains them.

Samson2005

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: You are misinterpreting the law
« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2006, 10:50:41 PM »
Thank you for your input.  I must disagree with you, though.

The statute states that, "(b) 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 appears to directly include -anyone- who might be in violation.

If the State's Compiled Statutes are not Public Law, then what is?

I do not believe that there is a wall between civil jurisdiction and criminal jurisdiction when criminal laws are broken. There is not supposed to be protection like that.


MixedBag

  • Global Moderator
  • SuperHero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • Karma: 155
  • That's Me...MixedBag
    • View Profile
    • http://www.doilyboutique.com
Title 18 USC Chapter 13, Section 242....
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2006, 06:22:10 AM »
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 242 Prev | Next

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

 
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

This is the Title 18 that I found that you referenced.....not sure how you think it applies in your case.
 


MixedBag

  • Global Moderator
  • SuperHero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • Karma: 155
  • That's Me...MixedBag
    • View Profile
    • http://www.doilyboutique.com
Back to the IL Reference
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2006, 06:35:20 AM »
found it on the net.

(720 ILCS 5/10-5.5)
    Sec. 10-5.5. Unlawful visitation interference.
    (a)  As used in this  Section,  the  terms  "child",  "detain",  and
"lawful  custodian"  shall have the meanings ascribed to them in Section
10-5 of this Code.

AND THAT was:

 (a)  For purposes of this Section, the following  terms  shall  have
the following meanings:
         (1)  "Child"  means  a person under the age of 18 or a severely
    or profoundly mentally retarded  person  at  the  time  the  alleged
    violation occurred; and
         (2)  "Detains"  means taking or retaining physical custody of a
    child, whether or not the child resists or objects; and
         (3)  "Lawful custodian" means a person or persons granted legal
    custody of a child or entitled to physical  possession  of  a  child
    pursuant  to  a  court order.  It is presumed that, when the parties
    have never been married to each other, the mother has legal  custody
    of  the  child  unless  a valid court order states otherwise.  If an
    adjudication of paternity has been completed and the father has been
    assigned support obligations or visitation rights, such a  paternity
    order should, for the purposes of this Section be considered a valid
    court order granting custody to the mother.

Back to 5.5

    (b)  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.
    (c)  A  person committing unlawful visitation interference is guilty
of a petty offense.  However, any person violating this Section after  2
prior  convictions  of  unlawful  visitation interference is guilty of a
Class A misdemeanor.
    (d)  Any law enforcement officer who has probable cause  to  believe
that a person has committed or is committing an act in violation of this
Section shall issue to that person a notice to appear.
    (e)  The notice shall:
         (1)  be in writing;
         (2)  state the name of the person and his address, if known;
         (3)  set forth the nature of the offense;
         (4)  be signed by the officer issuing the notice; and
         (5)  request  the  person to appear before a court at a certain
    time and place.
    (f)  Upon failure of the person to appear, a summons or  warrant  of
arrest may be issued.
    (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.
    (h)  A person convicted of unlawful  visitation  interference  shall
not  be  subject  to  a civil contempt citation for the same conduct for
violating visitation provisions  of  a  court  order  issued  under  the
Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.
(Source: P.A. 88-96.)

http://web.usf.edu/~honors/Website/current/StudentWebs/Kidnapping/Illinois_Statutes.html

And so, I go back to what I said in the other thread of our conversation.

You have a VAGUE order as to when you are supposed to have time with your child.

Actually, let me post this and go back and read through that conversation.

MixedBag

  • Global Moderator
  • SuperHero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • Karma: 155
  • That's Me...MixedBag
    • View Profile
    • http://www.doilyboutique.com
O.K., read through that.
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2006, 06:39:14 AM »
and you went to the "Probable Cause" argument.

I still say that you're not getting anywhere because your order is vague.

Police deal with too many unjustified complaints that can't be followed through in a courtroom, so they will sometimes err on the side of caution in some cases.

Get your order clarifed and specific.

Then go back and hammer it out.

Or rather if you feel you've got enough right now, go up the chain of command until someone listens....everyone works for someone...


Samson2005

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: O.K., read through that.
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2006, 12:54:53 PM »
Do you think the 2 law firms and the judge all knowingly dispensed an unenforcable order? Shouldn't they know one when they see it, being that is their specialty?

Are the lawyers and judges dispensing bad orders knowing they will see the folk back soon to pay to resolve the issues of the deficiant orders?

What would be the motve to dispense unenforcable orders? Knowledge that people bleed more money at the courthouse as repeat customers?

Should I believe my lawyer and judge or the beat cop?

MixedBag

  • Global Moderator
  • SuperHero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • Karma: 155
  • That's Me...MixedBag
    • View Profile
    • http://www.doilyboutique.com
O.K., NOW you're getting real argumentative
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2006, 01:14:31 PM »
and your sarcasm is noted and will be ignored.

Mainly because it seems as if you'd rather complain here than take action.

Judges sign orders with the hopes that they will be followed.  

If they are not followed which is what you allege, then file a "Motion for Contempt" in the judge's courtroom so that he can see that the order that HE signed isn't being followed as he (or SHE for that matter) ordered.

"the beat cop?"  -- go above that police offer's head IN WRITING to the chief of police and quote your statutes along with a copy of your current order.

And if the chief of police doesn't answer you -- go to his boss (probably the mayor) etc....and since it's a state law, you can also contact the DA's office who prosecutes criminal laws.

Many of us end up with court orders that are vague even though we've done our best at the time of the divorce to make it specific.  You can be angry all you want -- but the trick is to take that negative energy you feel and to take some action to get positive results.

Then come back and share the results of your actions with all of us so that we can learn from each other's experiences.

Samson2005

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: O.K., NOW you're getting real argumentative
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2006, 06:31:14 PM »
>and your sarcasm is noted and will be ignored.
>
>Mainly because it seems as if you'd rather complain here than
>take action.
>

I appreciate your responses but they have not answered the questions about abuse of the process.

I sincerely believe that causing people to return to court over problems that should have been forseen is a disgrace to everyone, especially to those they claim to protect.

 

Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.