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

[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