Using the same attorney

[Samson2005]

Most of the stories on this board are from people who have had difficulties, yes. Most people don't go around talking about how smooth their lives are. They reach out when there is a problem.

Alot of people don't know it, but they can refuse to allow the court to make decisions concerning their children unless it is proven that they are in danger.

People essentially are ASKING the court to get involved with their children when they go there arguing about who will be where and when.

Get a divorce and refuse to discuss the children to not give the court jurisdiction if you are able.

Bless you both if you are capable of raising your children without getting the monsters involved. It is your right as Americans to raise your children as long as they are not endangered.

If you're getting divorced and the judge or one of the lawyers starts talking about your children (they see dollar signs). Say that you refuse to allow the court to even discuss them.

[mistoffolees]

>If you're getting divorced and the judge or one of the lawyers
>starts talking about your children (they see dollar signs).
>Say that you refuse to allow the court to even discuss them.


If you don't mind spending some time in jail for contempt of court.

You have no legal right to tell the court to jump in a lake.

[Samson2005]

a court does not have jurisdiction over anyone and everyone that walks in there.

most of the time divorcing couples unwittingly relinquish jurisdiction of their children during the divorce process and the lawyers almost NEVER tell them that because of the wealth gained from contested custody issued.

Even just one parent (when the other is seeking the court's involvement)can object to the court exercising power over his child as a violation of the constitutional rights of himself and the child.

you really should not state your opinions as fact in a place like this.

[mistoffolees]

>you really should not state your opinions as fact in a place
>like this.

Nor should you.

The difference, of course, is that my opinion is based on the collective experience of 300 million Americans over 200 years. If a court says it has jurisdiction, it does - until you take it to the Supreme Court and win. Since there have not been any cases where anyone has taken this to the Supreme Court, the court's saying that it has jurisdiction is sufficient.

You're the one making the incredible claim (that you can tell the court to p*** off if you wish), Seems to me that it's about time for you to prove that claim.

[Samson2005]

Mist, I think I recall having this discussion with a well known lawyer in this state. You are welcome to call him and discuss the issue if you please, just let me know if you want his contact info.

Anyway, here is something I found on the web:

How to object to personal jurisdiction.
* 735 ILCS 5/1-301. Before filing any other pleading, file a Special and Limited Appearance. WARNING: Any Appearance that is not a Special Appearance is a general Appearance.
* If the reason for your objection to the personal jurisdiction is not apparent from the papers already in the court file, the Special and Limited Appearance must be supported by an Affidavit setting out the reasons.
* Make certain you only pray that the Court determines it has no personal jurisdiction. If you request any other relief, you are submitting your client to the jurisdiction of the court and yourself to a possible malpractice claim. Do not pray for attorney's fees. Do not pray for such further or different relief as the court deems appropriate. Do not pray for a substitution of judge.
* If you win this motion, the case is over as far as your client is concerned.
* If you lose this motion, you have a horrible choice to make. Do you convert your Special and Limited Appearance to a general Appearance and participate in the case? (If you do, and a judgment is entered against your client, you can no longer appeal the jurisdictional issue).
* The other alternative is to not participate in the rest of the case, have a default judgment entered against your client and then appeal the jurisdictional issue at the conclusion of the case.

[mistoffolees]

>Mist, I think I recall having this discussion with a well
>known lawyer in this state. You are welcome to call him and
>discuss the issue if you please, just let me know if you want
>his contact info.
>
>Anyway, here is something I found on the web:
>
>How to object to personal jurisdiction.
>* 735 ILCS 5/1-301. Before filing any other pleading, file a
>Special and Limited Appearance. WARNING: Any Appearance that
>is not a Special Appearance is a general Appearance.
>* If the reason for your objection to the personal
>jurisdiction is not apparent from the papers already in the
>court file, the Special and Limited Appearance must be
>supported by an Affidavit setting out the reasons.
>* Make certain you only pray that the Court determines it has
>no personal jurisdiction. If you request any other relief, you
>are submitting your client to the jurisdiction of the court
>and yourself to a possible malpractice claim. Do not pray for
>attorney's fees. Do not pray for such further or different
>relief as the court deems appropriate. Do not pray for a
>substitution of judge.
>* If you win this motion, the case is over as far as your
>client is concerned.
>* If you lose this motion, you have a horrible choice to make.
>Do you convert your Special and Limited Appearance to a
>general Appearance and participate in the case? (If you do,
>and a judgment is entered against your client, you can no
>longer appeal the jurisdictional issue).
>* The other alternative is to not participate in the rest of
>the case, have a default judgment entered against your client
>and then appeal the jurisdictional issue at the conclusion of
>the case.

That's nice. Now, if you ever come up with some evidence that you're allowed to tell a judge to get lost because you don't want him involved in your child custody case, feel free to provide it.

And, no, I'm not interested in retaining an attorney to discuss the matter.

[Samson2005]

I guess there is no way for me to make sense to you then.. I've tried both ways.

[mistoffolees]

>I guess there is no way for me to make sense to you then..
>I've tried both ways.

Maybe you could try providing real evidence that you can tell a judge that they have no right to get involved in your case without penalty instead of just posting irrelevant ramblings.

[suebee]

You have made some wonderful points not only for the person you responded to but for me. I've been the parent (mom) who lives 6 miles from my EX and kids (we have joint legal custody, he has physical custody) and have been kept from them except for what the specific visitation states for 2 years now.

My daughter said it best...as have you...kids need BOTH parents. My EX spent 2 years making me pay for hurting him and allowing his soon to be EX wife to delete me from my kids lives b/c of her mental instabilities and jealousy. Now that she is gone, my EX may have seen the light and wants to talk and I intend to do so cooperatively and amicably in order to make things better for our kids, b/c they've been through hell with his wife, and with he and I not coparenting.

The KIDS come FIRST and they are the ones who end up suffering the most when parents don't put aside all their messy emotions that have nothing to do with the kids.

[lilywhite]

>Mist, I think I recall having this discussion with a well
>known lawyer in this state. You are welcome to call him and
>discuss the issue if you please, just let me know if you want
>his contact info.
>
>Anyway, here is something I found on the web:
>
>How to object to personal jurisdiction.
>* 735 ILCS 5/1-301. Before filing any other pleading, file a
>Special and Limited Appearance. WARNING: Any Appearance that
>is not a Special Appearance is a general Appearance.
>* If the reason for your objection to the personal
>jurisdiction is not apparent from the papers already in the
>court file, the Special and Limited Appearance must be
>supported by an Affidavit setting out the reasons.
>* Make certain you only pray that the Court determines it has
>no personal jurisdiction. If you request any other relief, you
>are submitting your client to the jurisdiction of the court
>and yourself to a possible malpractice claim. Do not pray for
>attorney's fees. Do not pray for such further or different
>relief as the court deems appropriate. Do not pray for a
>substitution of judge.
>* If you win this motion, the case is over as far as your
>client is concerned.
>* If you lose this motion, you have a horrible choice to make.
>Do you convert your Special and Limited Appearance to a
>general Appearance and participate in the case? (If you do,
>and a judgment is entered against your client, you can no
>longer appeal the jurisdictional issue).
>* The other alternative is to not participate in the rest of
>the case, have a default judgment entered against your client
>and then appeal the jurisdictional issue at the conclusion of
>the case.
>
>
>
But you left out the first part which says:  
"Personal Jurisdiction
A court has personal jurisdiction over a person who has been served with a summons anywhere in the State of Illinois. 735 ILCS 5/2-209(b)(1).
A Court may have jurisdiction over someone who has been served outside the State of Illinois if that person committed an act that submits him to the jurisdiction of the Illinois Court. 735 ILCS 5/2-208 and 209. This is commonly called the Long Arm Statute.
The United States Supreme Court decided Kulko vs. The Superior Court of California (1978). 98 S.Ct. 1690, 436 US 84. Couple divorced in New York. Wife and child moved to California. Father acquiesced to move. Mother sought to set child support in California against father. U. S. Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution operates as a limitation on the jurisdiction of state courts to enter judgements affecting rights or interests of non-resident defendants. A valid judgment imposing a personal obligation may only be entered by a court having personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The existence of personal jurisdiction depends upon the presence of reasonable notice to the defendant that an action has been brought and a sufficient connection between the defendant and the forum state to make it fair to require the defense of the action in the forum state. There was not a sufficient connection in this case and the California court did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Kulko.
Similar Illinois Appellate Court decisions are:
Duncan vs. Duncan, 94 Ill.App.3d 868, 419 N.E.2d 700, 50 Ill.Dec.592 (3rd Dist. 1981).
In Re: The Marriage of Cody, 636 N.E.2d 1114, 201 Ill.Dec.682 (5th Dist. 1994).
Sections of 5/2-209 applicable to family practitioners are:
(5) With respect to actions for dissolution of marriage, declaration of invalidity or legal separation, maintaining a matrimonial domicile in Illinois at the time the cause of action arose or committing in Illinois an act giving rise to the cause of action..

(6) for an action under the Parentage Act, the performance of an act of sexual intercourse within the State of Illinois.

(8) the performance of sexual intercourse within the state which is claimed to have resulted in the conception of a child who resides in this state.

(9) the failure to support a child, spouse or former spouse who has continued to reside in this sate since the person either formerly resided with them in this state or directed them to reside in this state.

There are slightly different rules for personal jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. 750 ILCS 22/201. Long Arm jurisdiction can be obtained if the defendant resided with the child in Illinois, the defendant resided in Illinois and provided pre-natal expenses or support for the child, the child resides in Illinois as a result of the acts or directives of the defendant, the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse in Illinois and the child may have been conceived by that act, or of any other basis consistent with the constitutions of Illinois or the United States."

Then there's you part which is soley about long-arm jurisdiction.  If you live in Illinois, Illinois has jurisdiction (see the very first part).