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: Police Won't Enforce-Judge Won't Allow More Specific Schedule  (Read 6290 times)

Samson2005

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
For Those Dealing With PAS
« Reply #20 on: Apr 24, 2007, 04:53:13 PM »
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

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 397
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Does this Mean there is no hurry?
« Reply #21 on: Apr 24, 2007, 06:00:12 PM »
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

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Does this Mean there is no hurry?
« Reply #22 on: Apr 24, 2007, 08:10:00 PM »
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

  • Global Moderator
  • SuperHero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • Karma: 155
  • That's Me...MixedBag
    • View Profile
    • http://www.doilyboutique.com
RE: That's NOT using the child as a tool!
« Reply #23 on: Apr 24, 2007, 08:41:08 PM »
Judge in EX#3's case order make up time.

MixedBag

  • Global Moderator
  • SuperHero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • Karma: 155
  • That's Me...MixedBag
    • View Profile
    • http://www.doilyboutique.com
RE: For Those Dealing With PAS
« Reply #24 on: Apr 24, 2007, 08:47:43 PM »
 "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

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
child as tool
« Reply #25 on: Apr 24, 2007, 09:29:31 PM »
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

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
3rd Parties in Contempt
« Reply #26 on: Apr 24, 2007, 09:47:00 PM »
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

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: child as tool
« Reply #27 on: Apr 25, 2007, 12:03:46 AM »
bump :)

gemini3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  • Karma: 1004
    • View Profile
Just a thought...
« Reply #28 on: Apr 27, 2007, 12:34:40 PM »
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

  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1013
  • Karma: -545
    • View Profile
RE: Just a thought...
« Reply #29 on: Apr 27, 2007, 10:20:40 PM »
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....

 

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.