Child Ditches Me - Cops Are Barriers

[Samson2005]

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?

[MixedBag]

Cops enforce criminal law.

Family courts and judges enforce civil law.

Your divorce decree is civil, not criminal.

That's why you need to go to court to get enforcement.

So, it goes back to the question:

What's in the order -- like post the exact text that allows you to pick up your daughter from school.

If BM isn't allowing you to have your daughter when the order says, then you must file contempt in court and follow that route.

And sorry to read about your father....that's just sad.

[Samson2005]

720 ILCS 5/10-5.5) Sec. 10-5.5. Unlawful visitation interference, makes the interference a criminal offence (petty offense, like speeding).

My order states that every other weekend, at the time school dismisses, she is to be with me.

Thank you for the reply.

(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 9.5 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.
    (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.)  

[MixedBag]

Please explain to me HOW the cop is supposed to know that it's YOUR weekend to have your daughter?

(I'm playing devil's advocate here -- so you get the picture.)

Answer:  You do this 3 weekends in a row with the SAME police officer and by the third weekend, surely you should have had her.

Then again -- it's May -- and Mom is probably supposed to have her for Mother's Day.

In April, Easter would have been thrown into the mix.

In June, Father's Day...

In July, 4th of July...

See your order is vague and that's why IMHO they won't get involved.

[Samson2005]

the cop said that the law does not require him to do anything no matter what.

this about the times is an argument that can be made, but, at some point, the police are supposed to believe victims and witnesses, when it comes time to enforce laws.

Alot of people would be disappointed after a charge of theft was made and the cop told them that he/she would not enforce the law because the victim did not have a reciept to prove ownership of the item to begin with..............

[Samson2005]

I guess this would be a good place to insert the definition of "probablt cause"

PROBABLE CAUSE - A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992).

It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).

When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.

In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal.
   --b--THE 'LECTRIC LAW LIBRARY(tm)

[MixedBag]

If you truly believe that the police officers can do something, then go up their chain of command to supervisors and in the end, the mayor.

[Samson2005]

"If you truly believe that the police officers can do something,"

I think they are obligated by law to do what the statute says. "Will they do something?" seems to be the test.  What does a person do when laws to protect people are being ignored? Working up the chain seems to make sense, but, that will be stepping on alot of toes to do it. The police have already expressed a willingness to be confrontational over me wanting what is mine.

[MixedBag]

then confront...

[4honor]

It may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

Sure, a court order is a law unto you and BM. However, you have a vague order. It is very hard to enforce a vague order. It is considered manifestly unjust to hold a person to a law that is on its surface unclear. There are too many variables for a police officer to do ANYTHING with it. And claiming Visitation Interference is not applicable, because you must have an order specific enough by which to measure if the PRESENT time period you are seeking to get your child is the ACTUAL time period you are entitled to have her. They must also SEE the crime of visitation interference taking place to enforce the law. All they see is you waving papers in their faces. I'd be mad too.

The police cannot do anything to BM because your order is vague ---leaving the order open to interpretation -- and any variance in interpretation is "given" to the non-moving party, which in this case would be BM, since you would be the one asserting your rights.

The police are pissed because you are trying to enforce "a law unto BM" without it having any teeth. The police told you how to give them something to go on and now you are just pissing them off over and over wasting their time with an order that has more holes than a fishing net.

Go get the order clarified, as it isn't working. The old every other weekend wording is useless. It needs to define a weekend. It needs to define how to determine whether a weekend is in one month or the next. You want 1st 3rd and 5th weekends. (Which will increase time slightly over EOW). You want the child to be made available for your pickup from her school at 3:01 PM during the school year. You want to make the child available for pick up at 6 PM Sunday evenings. You want to spell out the exact schedule. You also want to spell out the procedure by which to make one time changes and trades in case of emergencies, illnesses and school related obligations.

You need to take this back to court -- which you  appear intelligent enough to do pro se if need be -- for a clarification.

Between now and then, you need to document the lack of contact with your daughter. You are stuck with this until you do, cause the police are right, they cannot help you and going over their heads is only going to make you a "ticket target".