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

[MixedBag]

let me add a few things.

I overcome 750 miles to maintain a relationship with my son once a month.  Yeppers, getting ready to drive that distance again for this upcoming weekend....and back here..

And yes, I am in contact with his teachers and sit and wait those 2 hours between when school dismisses and I am allowed to go pick up my son for our weekend together.

And yes, where I can I volunteer to do stuff at the school.  

And yes, his current high school guidance counselor know me the minute I walk in the door by name and know I am his mother....and his high school principal and I supervised a dance together several years ago when he was in elementary school.  She thanked me afterwards for being so "tough" on the kids and not letting one student walk out the door without being connected to a parent that night (my military side kicked in).

Divorce and court and all that don't always pass the simple common sense test.  It just doesn't work that way anymore once the big "D" enters life.

Mist gave you some good follow-up advice.

I'm on your side....but I want to paint an accurate picture of what you can expect from the system.

[Samson2005]

Having to go to extents like that to be a parent sounds like some tale from the dark ages.

Here we are in the 21st century and selfishnesses abounds...

Good for you MB!  You are an exceptional parent! Most would run from circumstances like that!

I hope that the EX does not try to take away from the time you do have with your son.

Thank you for your input and kind regards.

[MixedBag]

and failed and was found in contempt in court.

Keep pushing -- again, I'm on your side because you are on the child's side.

My ex and Camilla like to control me through our son, but that grip is coming loose quite quickly.

Therefore, I encourage you to keep after your child, and in the back of your mind, understand how something simple that looks like "Yes, this is in the best interest of the child" now all of a sudden needs to be proven instead of accepted as fact.

PROVEN as fact -- that's how it works in our court system.

And realize, that for me, this whole thread, well at least my responses, have been printed off and more trees have been killed.....that's the way Camilla operates.

[Samson2005]

Good Golly!  I went to a library to find pertinent case law on some of the issues in my state.  I have over 200 cases to sort through and only searched for a few of the issues at hand....

[MixedBag]

wonderful database!!!

What library gave you access to it???

It's pretty expensive to subscribe to it -- and I know law schools give their law students access....

[Samson2005]

The local college here has it. I have 20 pages of case law...and I've only looked at that many cases. 180+ cases to go.... it's too much :)

How does this look to you?

"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).



Is this what you were describing when you said I need at least case law to back up statements?

"A contention that is supported by some argument, but by no authority
whatsoever, does not satisfy the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7). ( Fuller v. Justice (1983), 117 Ill. App. 3d 933, 942-43; Wilson v.
Continental Body Corp. (1981), 93 Ill. App. 3d 966, 969.)"

[Samson2005]

Thus to restrict visitation rights the trial court must find that the visitation
as it exists endangers seriously the child's physical, mental, moral or
emotional health. Any subsequent modification is then governed by the best interests of the child.  See Crichton v. Crichton (1979), 75 Ill. App. 3d 326, 393 N.E.2d 1319.


"Regardless of the court's opinion regarding the desirability of the results surrounding the operation of the statute, the court must construe the statute as it is and may not, under the guise of construction, supply omissions, remedy defects, annex new provisions, substitute different provisions, add exceptions, limitations, or conditions, or otherwise change the law so as to depart from the plain meaning of the language employed in the statute." Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Adelman, 215 Ill. App. 3d 561, 568, 574 N.E.2d 1328, 158 Ill. Dec. 935 (1991)....we must enforce the laws enacted by the legislature, not the laws the legislature ought to have enacted. See Kozak v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund, 95 Ill. 2d 211, 220, 447 N.E.2d 394, 69 Ill. Dec. 177 (1983)."

[step_momma_to_2boys]

Hi there.  I just wanted to let you know that what you are asking for is not unreasonable.  I am SM to 2 boys.  My DH went through this very thing last year.  We had been picking up boys from school EOW.  And whenever there was early release, or an extra day from school on our weekend, the boys were with us.  Then one day, BM got mad at us and took that all away.  Why?  Because she could.  It wasn't specifically stated that we could pick up the boys FROM school, only AFTER school. So she actually argued that the boys needed to keep their daily routine of coming home, putting away backpack, having snack, and doing their chore.

We live 2 hrs away, and being able to meet with the boys' teachers was very important to us.  If it did need to go to court, we would have had to subpoena all the boys' teachers.  They would have been able to testify how great it was that we were involved in the boys' school life, being that we live 100 miles away.  So, maybe you might consider subpoenaing teachers to testify on your behalf.  And then, even if you go to the school, meet with the teachers, it doesn't make sense, nor does it sound in the best interest of your DD to have to go home and wait 2 hrs for you to pick her up when she is just sitting there.  She might as well be with one parent!

Luckily, we were only going through mediation, so we were able to get back and in writing, what we had been doing.  And yes, there is such a thing as status quo for NCP.  It's actually not FOR the NCP, but for the child.  If is has been the status quo for the child to be picked up from school EOW by father, than that is the status quo.

I doubt we would have had the judge rule against us and for the mom, had it needed to go to court.  The mediator basically told BM that was the boys' routine to be picked up from school EOW by dad.

Anyway, mixed gave you very technical advice based on her experiences.  I know that what you are going for sounds "reasonable" and "makes sense" but she has very good points.  It is not to say that what you are asking for is unreasonable, or that you shouldn't bother (you should!) She is just wanting to give you the best ammunition to help you win your issues.

Anyway, if you want any other info about how DH argued his points to the mediator, then ask away!  GOOD LUCK!

[Samson2005]

Hi and THANK YOU for your response!  I have many questions for you ans anyone who might want to voice their opinion. I will do so a little later, Thank you!

How do these court findings sound to you?

"The court cited no statutory authority for the shift in the burden of proof. We cannot accept the court's strained construction of the phrase "relevant standards." The Marriage Act sets out the factors for determining visitation privileges in section 607(a) ( 750 ILCS 5/607(a) (West 1996)), and those factors guide visitation determinations under the Parentage Act because they are the "relevant standards" for determining visitation privileges.  750 ILCS 45/14 (a) (West 1996)."

  "Regardless of the court's opinion regarding the desirability of the results surrounding the operation of the statute, the court must construe the statute as it is and may not, under the guise of construction, supply omissions, remedy defects, annex new provisions, substitute different provisions, add exceptions, limitations, or conditions, or otherwise change the law so as to depart from the plain meaning of the language employed in the statute." Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Adelman, 215 Ill. App. 3d 561, 568, 574 N.E.2d 1328, 158 Ill. Dec. 935 (1991)....we must enforce the laws enacted by the legislature, not the laws the legislature ought to have enacted. See Kozak v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund, 95 Ill. 2d 211, 220, 447 N.E.2d 394, 69 Ill. Dec. 177 (1983)."

Ragarding the above, I do not see how the following happened:

LaTour, 241 Ill. App. 3d at 502. The reviewing court held that the trial
court should have granted the father's request for the establishment of a
definite visitation schedule and remanded the case for the entry of a new
visitation order. LaTour, 241 Ill. App. 3d at 505. In remanding the case, the
reviewing court noted that the parties' children had busy extracurricular
schedules and indicated that it would be reasonable for the trial court to "provide that children with extracurricular activities scheduled on [the father's] weekend for visitation need not attend that visitation." LaTour, 241 Ill. App. 3d at 505. The reviewing court explained that "busy and appropriate extracurricular schedules need not dictate visitation, but a visitation schedule also should not dictate or unduly restrict [the children's] activities." LaTour, 241 Ill. App. 3d at 505.

In the event that the children's extracurricular activities unduly interfered with Jodi's ability to comply with the court-ordered visitation schedule, then the appropriate action that Jodi should have taken was to seek modification of the trial court's visitation order rather than to ignore its provisions. See Gibson v. Barton, 118 Ill. App. 3d 576, 579-80, 455 N.E.2d 282, 74 Ill. Dec. 252 (1983) (affirming a trial court's modification of a weekend visitation schedule because of the children's activities)....... As Jodi has not requested a modification of the visitation schedule, we reject her assertions that the children's extracurricular activities justified her noncompliance with the visitation provisions of the parenting agreement. Illinois courts have held that a custodial parent may not disregard the visitation requirements of a dissolution judgment merely because his or her children do not desire to visit the noncustodial parent. See In re Marriage of Marshall, 278 Ill. App. 3d 1071, 1082-83, 663 N.E.2d 1113, 215 Ill. Dec. 599 (1996);


I LOVE TO attend the extracurricular activities! Even though it costs $50 in gas and requires us to totally deviate from our routine of 10 years. Not requiring the child to attend visitation is in my opinion completely unreasonable.  Sometimes the children dont even want to go to the events. The saturday events, usually less than half of the children (who aren't out of town "visiting") are there. When mine has Saturday events and visitation is denied, she does not attend them...