Police Won't Enforce-Judge Won't Allow More Specific Schedule

[Samson2005]

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!

[notnew]

appeal. Do you have an attorney?

If you have a record of the police refusing to enforce due to the vague wording, keep one. Keep track of times, officer names, badge numbers, dates.

Another jerk making decisions that affect people's lives with no regard for this fact.

The more I hear of the courts mismanagement of the family law system, the more disgusted I become with the whole system. It doesn't work for family law. It doesn't work for criminal law. It doesn't work for civil law. It just doesn't work. How broken do we have to be before a change comes about?

Arghhh.

You can file an exception or an appeal. There are specific steps you must take and that can change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If you don't have an attorny, consult with one asap. You may only have a small window of time to file your objections.

[Samson2005]

The police told me that it is too vague, then wrote (3 reports out of 17 complaints) that the order needs to be revisited because it is so old. They also added that I was demanding that mom be arrested.

When In fact, I merely gave them copies of the visit order and (720 ILCS 5/10-5.5) Sec. 10-5.5. Unlawful visitation interference, and told them to enforce it.

Sec. 10-5.5 states: " (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.
    (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.

You know, it looks alot like the judges are pushing the people to rebel! Maybe they are activists.


""A scorpion, being a very poor swimmer, asked a turtle to carry
him on his back across a river.  "Are you crazy?" exclaimed the
turtle.  "You'll sting me while I'm swimming and I'll drown."

"My dear turtle," laughed the scorpion, "if I were to sting you,
you would drown and I would go down with you.
Now where is the logic in that?"

"You're right!" cried the turtle.  "Hop on!"  The scorpion
climbed aboard and halfway across the river gave the turtle a
mighty sting.  As they both sank to the bottom, the turtle
resignedly said:

"Do you mind if I ask you something?  You said there'd be no
logic in your stinging me.  Then why did you do it?"

"It has nothing to do with logic," the drowning scorpion sadly
replied.

"It's just my character.""


I have 2 days left to file for reconsideration.

[mistoffolees]

You have a number of choices.

You can appeal it. Likely to be expensive and time consuming.

or:

Go to the Police Chief and/or Mayor (or other elected official) and tell them that the judge says the ruling is clear and needs to be enforced. Give them the badge numbers of the person who refused to enforce it. If it says that transfers take place at Mom's at 5 pm Friday and home at 6 pm Sundays, then it looks like it's pretty clear.

Obviously, I recommend the latter - go up the ladder in the police organization - to the city officials, if necessary.

[notnew]

Well,

have you tried filing for contempt? If you go in for contempt, you can ask that the order be clarified and submit your "corrected" plan to the court that way.

How often does this happen?

The police do not like to get involved in these things.

It also may look bad that the police report says you were trying to have the other parent arrested even though you weren't.

I would file for contempt and perhaps even use the laws you detailed above to support your case.

However, you may not be able to make any headway with this at all and will need to decide when enough is enough and just accept whatever time you get with your kid.

I hate being so pessimistic, but my experience in the courts hasnt' been very NCP friendly. Also, my ex is a big liar and cries every time and they buy her crap over and over. I am so sick of hearing the crap she spews out that I would be happy to never see her in court or otherwise ever again!

BTW - I've seen my child one time in the last 7 months and talked about 5 times. This is a full blown alienation situation that I am just done with battling. When and if my child is ready, I will be there and my child knows this. Until them, I refuse to be abused by this situation any longer.

I hope you have a better outcome.

[Samson2005]

"If it says that transfers take place at Mom's at Friday and home at Sundays, then it looks like it's pretty clear.

That is the order that excludes me from extended weekends and is new (28 days old) The original order said after school every other weekend,

I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY EXTENDED WEEKENDS WITH MY DAUGHTER.

I think I will be in the clerks office tomorrow morning filing a reconsideration.

[Samson2005]

Sorry to hear that NOTNEW.

I will be in the clerks office filing for reconsideration hopefully tomorrow.

After the judge cut our time down, he looked at me and said, "you can tell me in June if you want me to continue to micromanage your visitation."

I never said anything about micromanaging my visitation, I SAID I WANTED IT ENFORCED.

I agree that it looks bad that the cop wrote that I was demanding that mom be arrested when I was demanding the statute be enforced.

I guess they are just that dense. They can't decipher a visitation order or understand the statute that governs it....then the judge whittles my time down and threatens to do the same if I complain.

[Samson2005]

The judge threatened mom with "I will award him 2 weeks of make-up visitation if there is one bump in the road between now and june."

HOW IS THAT THINKING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD??? USING THE CHILD AS A TOOL THE SAME AS MOM IS??

[notnew]

What is happening is the exact thing that happens with me all the time. The mother goes in and cries and lies and acts like I am just a rotten bastard who is harassing her all the time and that my child is terrorized of me which is NOT TRUE. She states clearly that she refuses to communicate with me but in the same breath, she also says I am a good father and a good man. She has also testifed under oath that she still loves me (gag) and tells our child so. Great way to screw up the kids mind. Act like you hate my guts and do everything to get in my way with the kid but profess to love me?

I come in with cold hard facts backed up by paperwork. What does it mean? Nothing.  I am convinved the judge had made his decision before he ever stepped foot in the courtroom the last day we were there. I lost a custody challenge with a custody evaluation recommending custody be transferred to me! How? With smoke and mirrors created by BM, attorney, and expert witness/counselor/liar. My child changed stories too after all the promises BM made along with no rules lifestyle being enoyed this very moment.

Now, I have to face the reality that my child most likely is smoking, drinking, involved in drugs already and could be sexually active at any time if not already. I know that my ex has told the child that as soon as the age of 16 is reached, she will allow the child to quit school. BM has sole custody so my rights other then paying $$$ have been terminated unlawfully. In my care, my child would have attended school regularly, been involved in extracurricular activities of her choice, been steered towards college and taught about accountability and responsibility. AND encouraged to have a loving relationship with the mother. These opportunities are, in my opinion, lost forever unless by some stroke of luck, some of what I was able to impart upon her before being ruined by my ex has stuck and comes out sometime in the future.

The courts see that the BOTH of us are equally responsible for not getting along. So, I get chastised for bringing her to court to demand my rights as a parent.

The judges make these important sounding statements to her about how if this happens one more time, the child is going home with dad and then it happens again, and they do nothing. I do not get hopeful anymore that they will actually enforce what they say to her.

Believe me, if it's not in the order, it doesn't matter. They want you to stop coming to court. The only way to do that is to give in to the hostile parent and give up your relationship with your child unless the hostile parent allows you to have a relationship. Oh yeah, be THANKFUL if you get any time at all too.

I would say to you that if your child is still young enough and you feel the relationship is salvagable and that the cause is still worth fighting for, go for it. But do keep in mind that there is a point for all involved where it is time to end the battle because the damage is just too great. Don't let it in effect, kill you (not literally you know). There comes a point where your own sanity is more important then the havoc that the ex is wreaking on everyone's lives.

It is sad that these hostile parents will use their own children to carry out these vicious acts. Even worse that the courts behave in the same manner.

You are right - Society is not standing up against all of this mess. There are so many wrongs in our reality right now that the best thing we as individuals can do is live as "right" as possible and try to counter the wrongs in our immediate environment. I believe things are going to get much worse before they get better but that discussion is for another type of board!

Good luck. You've got our prayers with you.

[mistoffolees]

>"If it says that transfers take place at Mom's at Friday and
>home at Sundays, then it looks like it's pretty clear.
>
>That is the order that excludes me from extended weekends
>and is new (28 days old) The original order said after school
>every other weekend,
>
>I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY EXTENDED WEEKENDS WITH MY
>DAUGHTER.
>
>I think I will be in the clerks office tomorrow morning filing
>a reconsideration.
>

You didn't say that.

As I understand the story now, you had an original order which you and/or your ex didn't think was clear. You went to the police and they agreed that it wasn't clear.

The judge said "OK, it's not clear, so here's the clear order and gave exact times and dates".

You have not tried to enforce the new (clarified) order.

All of that seems appropriate. Everyone agreed that the original order wasn't specific, so it was clarified. Now, if you try to enforce the new order and they won't do it, you might have an issue. Until that, it looks like you don't have a legitimate complaint against the police.

Your original post implied something very different.

As for filing for a reconsideration, you're of course free to do whatever you want, but plan on having it rejected. From reviewing the history, you've severely alienated the judge yet he gave you what you wanted (a clarified parenting plan) and told your ex not to violate it or she'd be in trouble. Now you're complaining again that you don't like what he did. Like it or not, alienating a judge is not a good thing to do - especially when they have unlimited discretion.

You really need to be working with an attorney. All you're accomplishing here is digging a hole for yourself, making yourself bitter, and getting your ex mad at you. And the kids get caught in the middle.

[Samson2005]

>>"If it says that transfers take place at Mom's at Friday
>and
>>home at Sundays, then it looks like it's pretty clear.
>>
>>That is the order that excludes me from extended weekends
>>and is new (28 days old) The original order said after
>school
>>every other weekend,
>>
>>I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY EXTENDED WEEKENDS WITH MY
>>DAUGHTER.
>>
>>I think I will be in the clerks office tomorrow morning
>filing
>>a reconsideration.
>>
>
>You didn't say that.
>
>As I understand the story now, you had an original order which
>you and/or your ex didn't think was clear. You went to the
>police and they agreed that it wasn't clear.
>
>The judge said "OK, it's not clear, so here's the clear order
>and gave exact times and dates".
>
>You have not tried to enforce the new (clarified) order.
>
>All of that seems appropriate. Everyone agreed that the
>original order wasn't specific, so it was clarified. Now, if
>you try to enforce the new order and they won't do it, you
>might have an issue. Until that, it looks like you don't have
>a legitimate complaint against the police.
>
>Your original post implied something very different.
>
>As for filing for a reconsideration, you're of course free to
>do whatever you want, but plan on having it rejected. From
>reviewing the history, you've severely alienated the judge yet
>he gave you what you wanted (a clarified parenting plan) and
>told your ex not to violate it or she'd be in trouble. Now
>you're complaining again that you don't like what he did. Like
>it or not, alienating a judge is not a good thing to do -
>especially when they have unlimited discretion.
>
>You really need to be working with an attorney. All you're
>accomplishing here is digging a hole for yourself, making
>yourself bitter, and getting your ex mad at you. And the kids
>get caught in the middle.


Mist, I'm sorry, but I don't think you will ever understand the situation.

[mistoffolees]

>
>Mist, I'm sorry, but I don't think you will ever understand
>the situation.
>

Maybe not - when you post little dribs and drabs of your story over 20 different threads and leave relevant information out every time.

[MixedBag]

IMHO, order is still vague because it says EOW.

Yes it gives time.

Yes it gives place.

Dad lost time because old order started and ended with school hours.

So....nope, police won't enforce because how are they supposed to know which weekend is dad's and which is mom's?  with EOW, they don't know when the pattern starts to alternate.

SO, the only way to enforce is through court.

AND file contempt after you have tried 2 weekends in a row to retrieve your child.  And the police would only be beneficial IF you catch the same officer on shift both weekends.

See, the first weekend is well is it his or hers?  But that determines the second weekend.

You don't need police officers and reports to do this.

I would only ask the judge to reconsider the start and ending times because the old order listed that they be in conjunction with school.

Yes, dad, you lost where school is out on a 3-day weekend.

Probably should have filed contempt in the first place when two weekends in a row are messed up (because that's definitely not EOW).

[MixedBag]

because he is using TIME with the child as the result of the bump in the road.

And actually, isn't that what you WANT???  Make up time with the child if the child has missed time with you.

Best interest of the child is when a parent does not interfere with the CHILD's right to be with either parent.

And when that time is interfered with, make-up time is appropriate.

Isn't it?

[notnew]

I agree Mixed that more time with the child is in the best interest of the child. However, I understood Samson's reasoning in that he asked to clarify the existing order so that he could pick up child from school (I would assume at X time, and drop off at X time). Instead of giving Samson the reasonable request, the judge (in my opinion), used the opportunity to stand on his soap box and treat the both of them like children. He fussed at Samson and said in effect that if he wasn't happy with this order, then he may even get less in the future and threatened the ex wife that if she didn't comply this time, he would take the child away from her and give extra time to Samson.

Yes, make up time is a good idea, but it totally goes against what Samson came in there for in the first place.

IMHO - the judge's comments were out of line.

[Samson2005]

Hi Mixed :)

I was hoping that Mom would cool off. She is getting worse and worse over the years. She isn't afraid for the judge to know it.

Even though I have petitioned the court to find her in contempt for roughly 75 days of denial, her answer was that she wants the court to reduce visitation time to every third weekend and 1 week in summer. (I moved 950 miles, away from family and friends to be a father to that girl. I have never missed any time I have been allowed with that child.)

Someone told me that because a judge said the order is clear enough that I have an action against the police. I really don't want to sue the police depts....They carry guns, ya know..

[Samson2005]

I wonder why the judges have never ordered make-up time instead of use it as a threat? That means the judges are not acting in the best interest.

[Samson2005]

"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).

[notnew]

I think mixed is saying you may make more headway in filing contempt should she continue to deny your time or make things difficult.

The key word in your posted staute is MAY. "The court may modify..."
This is where they get you. The statute/law is clear but there seems to always be outs in that it is up to the discretion of the court or the court MAY modify. That means whatever the judge who is looking at it at that moment feels like in my opinion.

Has your ex been denying or frustrating your time still? If so, I'd keep detailed records and when it happens for two times as mixed said, file for contempt.

Everyone can give you ideas, but not a magic solution that will work every time. Sometimes two people will follow the same exact process and get two different results. It's in the air.

Good luck.

[Samson2005]

She is by-the-book during court season. Still with the alienating behaviors and all.

We've been to court over and over again and she gets the same warning. I guess the warnings don't mean much more than the order she is warned to obey. All 7 times.

This last time the judge refused to have written on the order that she was warned again. He yelled at me like I had used fighting words when I told him that all the other judges "usually" add the words, "Plaintiff is ordered to obey the order." He said that he'd remember it. I said that he might not be our judge forever.

Since I've had an unenforceable order all these years and my family has suffered for it, I want at least my money back.

Those court people know what they are doing. They know what will work and what will keep the mill running. IMHO

[Samson2005]

Here is something that may be useful to people being refused visitation and the CP is using the excuse "the kids don't want to go.."

The trial court rejected the abuse allegations, held the mother in contempt and modified the visitation order to require the  [*1083]  mother "to deliver the children to her former husband's home at  [**1122]   the beginning of each visitation period and to call for them at its completion. "Doggett, 51 Ill. App. 3d at 872, 366 N.E. 2d at 988. 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, 366 N.E.2d at 988. If Kathy has failed to comply with her duties under the visitation order, the judge could sanction her appropriately.

[janM]

Some judges have no use for pro-se folks. He might be better behaved if you have an attorney. I would get one if I were you, preferrably one who specializes in family law. See the articles here on finding and hiring one.

[Samson2005]

I understand and agree. I have been calling attys today.

I don't expect a large victory because of an atty, but this may be my last shot. I'd like to know that I did everything I could. I will rest better :)

Thank you ALL!

[MixedBag]

Judge in EX#3's case order make up time.

[MixedBag]

 "The appellate court affirmed. Noting that "ultimate responsibility" for compliance with the visitation order rests with the custodial parent, "

Just about what I said in the thread on the first page under "Alec"....

Samson, I say keep pressing her.

When the child misses two weekends in a row with you, file for contempt.

Get that make up time.

And keep after the Custodial Parent until they figure it out.

QUOTE what you just did in your "Motion for Contempt" when you file it.

Hire an attorney?

Well, only you know that answer.

I am pro se, and it took me three trips to court before the judge finally understood what was going on.

(And my EX and Camilla JUST printed off this page to take to court the next time).

There are pros and cons to being pro se.

Just keep focused on the child.....  

And ask your EX, if the kids don't want to go to school, would you support that too?  A court order is no different, it binds the MOM, DAD, and CHILD.

[Samson2005]

I have never been given makeup time besides 1 weekend about 5 years ago. Right now, from the last 3 years, we are due for about 75 days.

[Samson2005]

I hope this doesn't hurt...

The power of a court to hold a person in contempt is not limited by the formal designation of the parties. Illinois courts have long held that an order may be binding not only upon the parties to the suit but also upon all persons who had actual notice of the order and its contents.  People ex rel. Scott v. Master Barbers & Beauty Culture Ass'n., 9 Ill. App. 3d 981, 985, 293 N.E.2d 393, 397 (1973), citing O'Brien v. People ex rel. Kellogg Switchboard and Supply Co., 216 Ill. 354, 367, 75 N.E. 108, 113 (1905). On numerous occasions, the appellate court has affirmed contempt findings against non-parties. See People ex rel. Burris v. Maraviglia, 264 Ill. App. 3d 392, 402, 636 N.E.2d 717, 725, 201 Ill. Dec. 285 (1993) (attorney held in contempt for failing to file documents as ordered by the court); National Metalcrafters v. Local 449, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers, 125 Ill. App. 3d 399, 407, 465 N.E.2d 1001, 1007-8, 80 Ill. Dec. 655 (1984) (non-party picketer held in contempt for violating injunction); and People v. Kennedy, 43 Ill. App. 2d 299, 302, 193 N.E.2d 464, 466 (1963) (in juvenile delinquency proceedings, step-father of minor held in contempt for striking child, thereby interfering with the maintenance of the court's power and dignity).

In addition to the knowledge requirement, a non-party must have a legally sufficient relationship with a party. Under the common law, "a decree of injunction binds not only the parties * * * but also those identified with them in interest, in 'privity' with them, represented by them or subject to their control." Golden State  [*1080]  Bottling Co. v.  [**1120]   National Labor Relations Board, 414 U.S. 168, 179, 94 S. Ct. 414, , 38 L. Ed. 2d 388, 400 (1973) (emphasis added); Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford, 68 F.3d 958, 965 (5th Cir. 1995).

A contemnor may be dealt with summarily without the formality of pleadings, notice and hearing when the actions constitute direct contempt. People ex rel. Chicago Bar Association v. Barasch, 21 Ill. 2d 407, 410, 173 N.E.2d 417, 419 (1961). Direct contempt occurs when contumacious acts take place in the presence of the court ( In re Marriage of Betts, 200 Ill. App. 3d [***21]  26, 47, [**1121]  558 N.E.2d 404, 418,  146 Ill. Dec. 441 (1990)), or when the acts are committed outside the presence of the judge but are admitted in open court (People ex rel. Barasch, 406 Ill. 253, 255, 94 N.E.2d 148, 149 (1950); People v. Harrison, 403 Ill. 320, 324, 86 N.E.2d 208, 210 (1949); see also Cesena v. DuPage County, 201 Ill. App. 3d 96, 113, 558 N.E.2d 1378, 1389, 146 Ill. Dec. 1044
(1990) ("when the alleged contemnor admits such an indirect contempt in court, it may be punished as a direct contempt"), rev'd on other grounds, 145 Ill. 2d 32, 582 N.E.2d 177, 163 Ill. Dec. 911 (1991)). A refusal in open court to comply with a previously entered court order also constitutes direct contempt. Betts, 200 Ill. App. 3d at 47, 558 N.E.2d at 418.

[Samson2005]

bump :)

[gemini3]

Because getting some awareness has been on my mind lately, and I believe you have to get the media onto a subject before anyone "official" starts paying attention.  They don't want to publicly look bad, you know.

April 25th was PA Awareness Day in a few states.  I tried like hell to get the news media where I live to do a story on it.  Sent them all kinds of facts, ect.  They probably think I'm crazy - lol!  Anyway, as I'm reading this I'm thinking that your local news station would probably love to have a good story about the police not doing their jobs.  Might get you a little more cooperation as well.  And - we might get a little much needed exposure to OUR side of the story (instead of pizza boxes).

Until I met my fiance I had no idea the magnitude of this problem.  I had heard about PAS (because I'm a psych major), but I had no idea how bad it was, or how ignorant our judicial system is to it.  I am constantly appalled at the behavior of judges and others involved in these matters.

Some people on this board have made mention of Alec Baldwin, and hoped that his story will bring some much needed attention to this problem, and I agree.  However, we can ALL do our parts to bring attention to what is happening to our lives and your children.

You are battling for the things most dear to you.  Your children.  We should be using every tool we have available to us, and the media is a powerful tool.  You have a good story.  You have followed the proper channels, you have a judges confirmation that your order is enforceable, you have all of your ducks in a row and the police department (most likely in ignorance, but that's no excuse) have refused to do their JOB.  The work for us - the citizens.  Hold them accountable.

[Davy]

I personally appreciate the content of all your posts and further appreciate the support you provide the fiance-father.

A bias media will continue to distort the truth in order to support a multi-billion dollar a year industry and at the same time present females as weak and in need of government support.  The females I associate with hold it all with disdain....

[catherine]

Custodial StepMom here that has dealt with similiar issues in the past when BioMom was custodian.  

How exactly do you wish the police would "enforce" visitation?  Physically enter the house and remove the children?   Arrest the BioMom?

I would just request that they write a police report documenting that she is refusing visitation.  If that is what you mean by enforce and they won't do that, then start videotaping your pick up and drop offs.  If she denies a few times, then you have ammunition to go back to court with on a visitation interference charge.

[backwardsbike]

I guess I'm one of the lucky ones.  On one occassion my X brought our children, then 15 and 13 to the exchange.  My 15 year old came to my car window and said in a very stilted voice, "I am refusing to come to your house to have this visit."  I said, get in the care and we'll talk about it at home.  I was parked in front of his father's vehicle.  Son walked back over and got in dad's vehicle.

I walked over to dad's vehicle to see if he would tell me about his refusal.  He is not a cooperatve man and likes to spring "surprises" like this on me.  When i approached his car hsi wife started yelling at me and sticking her head out the window on the driver's side- she was seated on the passenger's side!  She was laying across X to jab her finger into my face.  Ihad told both of them that the very next time she approached me in a threatening manner I would call the police as this is just her style but not what I have to put up with under the law ( why should I have to endure behavior that a stranger could file charges on her for just because she married the father of my children?)

She refused my request to sit down and allow my X and I to speak so I did call the police and asked for a keep the peace assist.

I left the site with my son in my custody and SM didn't come to exchanges again for six months and she has never approached me in a threatening manner again.

[Davy]

>How exactly do you wish the police would "enforce" visitation?

>Physically enter the house and remove the children?

>Arrest the BioMom?

Yes and Yes.  I believe the poster is making reference to the CRIMINAL statues concerning custodial interference.  These statues (as I remember) resulted from studies/evaluations conducted by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice funded, at least in part, by the ABA.  These statues are defined by state and documented in the article section on this site.

The continued unwillingness of courts to enforce their own orders on civil contempt for denying children access to a parent gave rise to criminal statues.  

[Samson2005]

Sec. 10-5.5.  Unlawful visitation interference.

(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.