Once a divorce begins seeking temporary relief in divorce court proceedings is very common. Emotions are usually running high when the divorce proceedings are initiated after a breakdown in a marriage. It’s not unusual for divorcing couples to find themselves unable to resolve even the smallest issues without needing assistance from the court. For that reason, pursuant to Section 501 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/501), Illinois law enables judges to enter what we refer to as “temporary orders”.
Temporary Relief Meaning and Status Quo Ante Status Quo Ante is a Latin phrase meaning “the previously existing state.” When parties are having trouble getting along and cannot come to an agreement on their own, there’s a need for temporary relief. To do this, judges usually want to restore the parties to the same position they were in before the breakdown of the marriage. So what does that mean for you? Think about the way things were before there was trouble in the marriage. The last time the two of you were getting along. What does that picture look like? Temporary Orders on Financial Issues Temporary orders on financial issues are important as a couple goes through the divorce process. Throughout your relationship, who paid for what? Who was responsible for what? Who took the kids to and from school and activities? Who paid for the children’s school and activity expenses? Who paid the mortgage, who paid what bills, who took care of this or that? Who carried the health insurance for the family? You get the idea. Some parties are able to communicate effectively to ensure their obligations are taken care of throughout the dissolution proceedings. While they may not want to continue paying bills the exact way they once did, they may be able to work out an agreement on their own to get them through the divorce process amicably. This isn’t always the case. When parties are unable to communicate effectively they tend to have a harder time seeing the big picture. Imagine how much time and money could be wasted arguing over something that was never an issue before. For example, imagine two parties still in the same house. Historically, Spouse A paid the water bill and Spouse B paid the electric bill. Spouse B files for divorce and now Spouse A refuses to pay the water bill, even though they have decided to remain in the same house throughout the proceedings. Does it seem logical to fight over such small issues when there is a big picture to be looking at? How will assets and debts be divided? What schools will the children go to? What will a parenting time schedule look like? Those are just a few of the big issues that need to be decided before the divorce can be finalized. Before you unilaterally decide to stop paying a bill, especially if you almost always paid that bill in the past, or before you unilaterally decide to take your spouse off your health insurance plan, first think about the big picture, mentioned-above, and then ask yourself a few questions. Do you have a logical reason for the decision you are about to make? Have you tried to resolve the issue with your spouse? Will a Judge support your decision? Temporary orders often tend to deal with issues regarding child support, maintenance, asset protection, possession of the marital residence and attorney’s fees but they can also deal with smaller issues. Filing a Petition for Temporary Financial Relief and Preparing for Hearing If a couple is unable to come to an agreement and need assistance from the court, they can file a petition requesting specific relief pursuant to Section 501 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. A lot of times these issues can be resolved between the parties and their attorneys but if a hearing is needed, then financial documents will need to be exchanged and presented to the Court before any decisions will be made. Both parties need to complete a financial disclosure. This document shows a party’s monthly income, taxes, living expenses, debts, assets, etc. The disclosure needs to be supported with documents, such as tax returns, recent pay stubs, and bank statements. Temporary Orders and Issues Related to Children Pursuant to Section 603.5 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/603.5), courts can enter temporary orders relating to the allocation of parental responsibilities, including parenting time and decision-making. The court’s number one concern is determining what is in a child’s best interests. The court will not enter a temporary order unless they believe it is in the best interests of the child. So even if the parties agree to a temporary order being entered, the court still must make sure it is in the child’s best interests. The court looks at numerous statutory factors when deciding what is in the child’s best interests. If the parties cannot agree on a temporary parenting time schedule or if they cannot agree on who makes major decisions relating to the child’s health, education, relegation, and extra-curricular activities, while the case is being decided then the court will schedule a hearing and the court will make the decision. Temporary Orders Granting Temporary Relief All orders are temporary until a final order or judgment is entered that resolves all pending issues. Temporary Orders can be modified during the proceedings but they end once a final judgment is entered with the Court. Temporary orders can help to bring some peace to the parties while they negotiate other terms of their divorce and can help to bring stability to children before a final parenting agreement is entered. If you have questions about divorce-related financial issues, child custody and parenting matters, or the Illinois divorce process, we can help. Contact Anderson & Boback today to speak with our experienced divorce attorneys regarding temporary relief in divorce. THIS ARTICLE WAS PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED AT: https://illinoislawforyou.com/illinois-divorce/illinois-divorce-temporary-relief-proceedings/
0 Comments
Jessica Marshall Named Illinois State Bar’s Young Lawyer of the Year
Anderson & Boback is proud to announce Jessica Marshall was recently named by the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) as the 2017–2018 Young Lawyer of the Year in Cook County. With this prestigious award, the ISBA honors the extraordinary commitment and dedication of a young lawyer who has provided outstanding service to the Illinois population. Each year only two outstanding lawyers are chosen for this award — one from Cook County and the other from any of the other Illinois counties. Jessica will be honored at the July 18, 2018 ISBA Awards Ceremony and Reception on July 18, 2018 at the Roanoke Restaurant in Chicago. We’re Congratulations to Jessica on her incredible accomplishment! Jessica is a Senior Associate at Anderson & Boback where she focuses her practice on divorce and family law. From child custody to military divorce, Jessica is a passionate advocate with an unwavering commitment to her clients. A compassionate and personable attorney dedicated to solving family law problems, contact Jessica Marshall. THIS ARTICLE WAS PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED AT: https://illinoislawforyou.com/a-b-news/jessica-marshall-isbas-young-lawyer-of-the-year/ Illinois Child Relocation and the Trend Against Relocating Out-of-State A recent Illinois child relocation case out of the Third District Appellate Court sets a trend for not allowing a parent to relocate to another state from Illinois. If you are considering a Petition to Relocate (or want to contest it), a reading of the following four cases is a must. While it is important to note that each of these cases is factually different, each one provides useful guidance. Even in the reading of the following cases, however, you’ll see that the different district courts in Illinois will still come up with different results, making the outcome of child relocation cases uncertain. Four Illinois Relocation Cases You Need to Know This article will review the four most recent cases, In re the Parentage of P.D., In re Marriage of Stimson, In re Marriage of Davchak, and the most recent case, In re Marriage of Fatkin. IN RE PARENTAGE OF P.D. In October of 2017, the 2nd District decided In re Parentage of P.D., 2017 IL App (2nd) 170355. Following an April 2017 hearing, the trial court denied respondent Joan Dufelmeier’s request to relocate to New Jersey with her and petitioner John Alley’s minor child. Joan appealed, and the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. IN THE MARRIAGE OF STIMSON In March of 2018, the Stimson case came down from the Appellate Court in the Fourth District. In the Marriage of Stimson, 2018 IL App (4th) 170731-U. That case involved a mother moving her children to North Carolina without asking the Court’s permission. The trial court denied her relocation petition and awarded the father the majority of the custodial rights. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. IN THE MARRIAGE OF KAVCHAK In March of 2018, the 2nd District decided the case the other way, and allowed the mother, Alicia Kavchak, to relocate the parties’ minor daughter to North Carolina. In re Marriage of Kavchak, 2018 IL App (2d) 170853-U. IN THE MARRIAGE OF FATKIN On April 25, 2018, the 3rd District ruled that the mother could move, but the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s ruling. In re Marriage of Fatkin, 2018 IL App (3d) 170779. As a result of the dissolution of their marriage, the parties, Danielle Fatkin and Todd Fatkin, were awarded joint custody of their two minor children. Todd subsequently filed a post-dissolution petition for leave to relocate with the minors out of the State of Illinois. The trial court granted the post-dissolution petition for relocation, and Danielle appealed. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Parent’s Relocation Statute: 750 ILCS 5 Section 609.2 Illinois child relocation cases are decided using the statute, 750 ILCS 5/609.2: The court shall modify the parenting plan or allocation judgment in accordance with the child’s best interests. The court shall consider the following factors:
In every relocation case, the best interests of a child must be determined on the facts of each case, and every case is going to have a set of different facts. The citation to and discussion of prior removal cases is of little value to the Appellate court in determining whether removal should be allowed because of this reason. All you can do is become familiar with the cases and try and learn what was important to each court and to modify your behavior in such a way that it increases your odds to relocate (or to defend it). In the following analysis, I’m not suggesting that any one factor weighed more heavily on the court than another, but it is interesting to put each case side by side to determine how some of the same issues are addressed by the courts. I’m going to address only two issues, the non-custodial parent’s involvement with the children and the custodial parent’s facilitation with parenting time, as it relates to these four cases. In my opinion, addressing these two issues are critical in a relocation case. Non-Custodial Parent’s Involvement One factor that seems to resonate throughout these types of family law cases though is the non-custodial parent’s (although we don’t have custody anymore in Illinois, this is the easiest way to describe this parent for the article’s purposes) involvement. For those parents that aren’t involved very much, it seems as if the court has an easier time allowing the relocation. In the most recent court ruling, Fatkin, the non-custodial parent was the mother. Danielle objected to the relocation and the testimony borne out showed that Danielle was very active in her children’s lives. At the end of their divorce, they’d agreed and entered into a Joint Parenting Agreement for their son (born in 2004) and a daughter (born in 2010). Danielle was given overnight parenting time of 6 out of every 14 days (every Monday and Tuesday night and every other Saturday and Sunday night), plus time after school on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays until Todd got off of work. The parties were to alternate one-week periods of parenting time during summer break. Danielle lived within two miles of Todd’s residence in a home that she had purchased. She was employed as a tenure-track professor of history and worked during the academic year from 8:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. She was under contract until 2020 with her current employer, and she did not intend to leave the area. Danielle regularly exercised her parenting time. She had been the soccer coach for both children (for the parties’ son for one season and the parties’ daughter for one season), volunteered in their classrooms, had been the room mother for the children’s classes, and was the group leader for the parties’ daughter’s 4-H club group. Danielle was primarily responsible for scheduling the children’s medical appointments, although Todd also involved. Danielle volunteered weekly in the classroom of the parties’ daughter, attended parent-teacher conferences, and kept in regular contact with the children’s teachers. She also provided enrichment activities related to archaeology to share her expertise in her field of work at the children’s school. Danielle and her children enjoyed doing many activities together, such as baking, running, biking, hiking, camping, taking road trips, reading, and horseback riding. For the 2016–17 school year, Danielle had seen the children every day after school until spring 2017 when Todd told the parties’ 12-year-old son that he was allowed to go directly home after school on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays because his son wanted to go home instead of going with Danielle. The Appellate Court found that both Todd and Danielle had exercised their respective parental responsibilities and parenting time, and neither of them had substantially failed or refused to exercise their allotted parental responsibilities under the allocation of parental responsibilities judgment. The court found that Danielle has been heavily involved in her children’s activities and schooling. The trial court ruled that the children could move, and given the distance and the long gaps between her parenting time, Danielle’s influence and involvement in parental decision making during the school year would greatly be diminished or nonexistent under the relocation order. On appeal, however, the Appellate Court reversed. In re Parentage of P.D., the evidence showed that P.D. and his father had a close relationship. While Joan was the custodial parent and had served as the primary caretaker, Jack has always sought to be involved, and he has always sought additional time with P.D. and currently fully utilizes his parenting time. P.D’s mother, Joan, acknowledged that the move to New Jersey would diminish Jack’s frequent contact with P.D. but argued that the schedules proposed by the GAL and Joan would allow Jack a similar amount of time with P.D. Jack testified about things he would not be able to do with P.D. if he lived in New Jersey, including “living in a suitable nearby household” and discovering “if he had changed his favorite color from green to red or back to green again.” In short, he would not “be able to have any normal visibility whatsoever” in P.D.’s life if either proposed schedule were approved. The trial court observed that the parenting time Jack currently enjoyed was aligned with his work schedule and maximized the amount of parenting time he had when he was not working. The court concluded that the quality of Jack’s current parenting time would not be met by the schedule proposed by the GAL or by Joan. The Appellate Court addressed other factors for affirming the trial court’s denial of Joan’s relocation petition, but the factor of Jack’s involvement was addressed in some detail. In Stimson, there were other factors that weighed more heavily on the court then the non-custodial parent’s involvement with his children. The reviewing court did affirm the trial court’s ruling to deny the mother’s relocation petition, but it was likely due to other factors. The non-custodian Andrew, did succeed in keeping Jamie from relocating, and eventually was awarded primary care of control of his youngest child, but the court’s main focus was not on his involvement. In Kavchak, although the father was very involved in his child’s life, that one factor was not enough to keep the court from allowing the mother to move to North Carolina with their child. The allocation judgment divided the parties’ parenting-time based on a two-week schedule. During the first week, petitioner’s parenting time begins on Wednesday at 5 p.m. and continues through Sunday at 5 p.m. During the second week, petitioner’s parenting time begins on Wednesday at 5 p.m. and continues overnight through Friday at 5 p.m. The allocation judgment further provided that each party have three non-consecutive weeks of parenting time with S.K. during the summer when she is out of school, alternate parenting time on major holidays and S.K.’s birthday, and share equally in spring and winter breaks. Greg Kavchak described his relationship with his daughter as “very strong.” He stated that he is an “active father” and a “day-to-day dad.” Grey testified that he cared for S.K. on a daily basis for the first six years of her life. He likes to do homework with his daughter, go to her extracurricular activities, and watch her grow. He also described his week-to-week parenting time with her, and testified that he has parenting time from Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. until Friday at 5:00 p.m. one week and Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. the following week. In addition, since March 2017, when his ex-wife Alicia moved out of the marital home, he has had telephonic contact with his daughter through FaceTime about once a day. Greg explained that when Alicia moved out of the marital home in March 2017, he changed his work schedule to “take advantage of [his] parenting time [and] to keep the quality of care that [he has] been giving [S.K.] since she was born.” To this end, Grey altered his work schedule to ensure that he is off work on Wednesdays at 4:30 p.m. so he can be home by 5 p.m. when Alicia drops off S.K. In addition, on Thursday and Friday mornings, he starts work at 8:30 a.m. so that he can spend the mornings with S.K. before school and walk her to the school bus. Paula Kavchak, Greg’s mother, resides in Chicago and is able to stay with S.K. on Thursday afternoons until he arrives home at 5:30 p.m. On Friday afternoons, he leaves work by 3:00 p.m. so that he can be available for S.K. when she gets home from school. Greg described his daughter’s extracurricular activities and testified that she takes swimming lessons and violin lessons. The swimming lessons occur once per week, on Fridays at 5 p.m. and Greg transports her to each lesson and stays for the entire time. He also attends her swimming lessons. Their daughter has been taking violin lessons since October 2016. Violin lessons occur once a week and take place at Alicia’s apartment. Alicia has not invited Greg to attend the lessons because they occur at a time when he is normally at work. Greg, however, has attended her violin recital. Greg testified that since entry of the judgment of dissolution, he has exercised all of the parenting time allocated to him. He further testified that other than when his mother watches S.K. after school on Thursday afternoons, he has never left S.K. with a babysitter during his parenting time. The court found that Greg acknowledged that he made various requests to modify his work schedule since S.K. was born and his employer always accommodated his requests. The Court found that the scheduled parenting time ordered for Greg would allow him to remain involved in her life. The Court went on to describe other statutory factors, but it is interesting that this very involved father did not succeed in keeping the relocation petition from being granted. If the Custodial Parent can Facilitate a Relationship between the Children and the Non-Custodial Parent This factor can fit into a couple of areas that the Court needs to consider under the statute. Basically, if the custodial parent cannot get along with the non-custodial parent, or stands in the way of the relationship between the non-custodial parent and the children while that parent resides in Illinois, how will that parent act once there is a relocation? The more problems with parenting time here in Illinois, the less likely the moving parent will success in a relocation case. In In re Parentage of P.D., in a preliminary report, the GAL recommended that the petition be denied stating his concern that allowing Joan (custodial parent) to move to California would “permit her to continue treating Jack (Non-custodian) as an outsider despite the fact that he is P.D.’s father.” He was also concerned that Joan had not made a reasonable “good faith effort” to establish a schedule of parenting time for the father. The trial court expressed its concern that the relocation would adversely affect Jack’s ability to fulfil his parental responsibilities, given the historically poor communication between the parties. Joan indicated that she and her new husband had the financial resources to contribute to P.D.’s travel costs, and they “might pay for some of [Jack’s transportation],” but also testified that the travel burden should be on Jack: “Jack is a grown adult. He can come to visit his son if it’s important enough to him.” The tenth factor is “minimization of the impairment to a parent-child relationship caused by a parent’s relocation.” In its examination of the GAL, the trial court recited the GAL’s comment in his “Preliminary Oral Report”: “Of concern to me is the fact that as long as I have been involved in this matter Joan has shown absolutely no patience for Jack’s involvement with the child nor has she, in my opinion, made even the slightest effort to try and open lines of communication or to treat either Jack or his family as the parents [sic] or grandparents of P.D. I do not believe that this necessarily means that Joan has an improper motive in wanting to move, but my larger concern is that if she is allowed to move, is her behavior going to continue in such a distant jurisdiction to the point where she will attempt to cut Jack out of [P.D.’s] life?” In the GAL’s report, he also acknowledged that his report and testimony about multiple references to Joan’s attitude toward Jack, including; “I do wish at times from my observation that [Joan] showed [Jack] more respect as a father,” and Joan “basically treats Jack as something of an intrusion upon the family dynamic that she would prefer recommending that the petition be allowed, the GAL stated “I remain concerned, as I have during my entire involvement in this matter, with the attitude of Joan. If she does not show a willingness to facilitate the relationship between Jack and [P.D.,] [c]ourt [o]rders will need to enter rectifying the situation.” The trial court concluded that because Joan “does not show a willingness to facilitate a positive relationship between father and son,” the tenth factor “strongly favors denial.” In In re Marriage of Kavchak, there was no finding that the mother was keeping the father from the children, or that she intervened at all in the relationship. Her petition to relocate was granted. In In re the Marriage of Stimson, that mother moved her children to North Carolina without leave of court. This mother alleged sexual abuse by the father toward the children that was unfounded. An expert in the case, Dr. Appleton, determined the mother not only failed to facilitate the relationship between the father and the children but also may have taken steps to interfere with it. The mother was ordered to bring the children back to Illinois. Lastly, in In re the Marriage of Fatkin, the court heard evidence that the father told his son that he didn’t have to go to the mother’s house after school and that he could go home by himself instead. The trial court had allowed the dad to move with the kids, but the Appellate court reversed the ruling. The Appellate Court didn’t make any finding of facilitation, however, and seemed primarily moved by the mother’s influence with the kids and her involvement. Child Relocation Cases Are Complex In conclusion, relocation cases are difficult. The judges have a lot of factors to weigh, and the combination of the multiple factors are never the same in each case. That makes prevailing in this type of case difficult. However, it can never hurt to facilitate a relationship between your kids and the other parent. It doesn’t matter if you are the custodial parent or the non-custodial parent. The facilitation helps almost any aspect of your case before the court, and there is no downside. It is a win/win for the parents, and surely for the kids. The question is, “Can you love your kids more than you hate the other parent?” If you can, then show it. Facilitate a relationship. Lastly, be involved in your children’s lives. Do things with them. Teach them. Play with them, but do the hard work too. Go to teacher-parent conferences. Take the kids to the dentist. Believe me, you’ll be glad you did. If you’re facing The complexities of child relocation and custody laws require sound legal input and advice. Contact Anderson & Boback today if want to learn more a petition for relation or Illinois child relocation law. THIS ARTICLE WAS PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED AT: https://illinoislawforyou.com/child-custody/illinois-child-relocation-laws-and-recent-cases/ Dividing retirement accounts in divorce is often confusing and complex for many many couples going through a divorce in Illinois. Dividing retirement accounts — 401(k)s, pension plans, IRAs, etc. — like any other assets to be divided in an Illinois divorce follow the rules of equitable division of marital property. The General Rules of Property DivisionAs mentioned in prior blog posts, Illinois is not a “community property state”; it is an “equitable distribution” state. In a “community property” state there is a presumption that all marital property will be divided equally. In Illinois, we provide an “equitable division” of said marital property, based upon certain factors and criteria. Equitable is not always equal. Generally, in Illinois marital property can be divided disproportionately in when there is a lengthy marriage, a disproportionate future earning capacity, when the parties have significant age difference, as well as when many other factors are present. However, in Illinois retirement accounts are generally divided without much regard to those specific factors. Why is Retirement often Divided Differently than other Marital Assets?While there is no “set in stone” rule about how retirement accounts are to be divided, many Judges in Illinois divide them 50/50, despite other marital property being divided disproportionately. There are many reasons why this might occur. First, at the time of retirement, no one is working, and both parties may be drawing on the same social security, depending upon the years of marriage, any remarriages, etc. But generally speaking, the parties, at the time of retirement, are on so called “equal footing” because no one is employed. The marital share of the retirement, thus, can be divided equally between the parties. However, it is not impossible to obtain a disproportionate share of retirement accounts, it is just very rare and reserved for extenuating circumstances. Will I be Charged a Penalty or Taxes for Dividing a Retirement Account in my Divorce?The answer to this common question is Maybe. Paying a penalty or incurring a tax will depend upon what type of account is being divided. Generally speaking, IRA accounts can be rolled over from one person to another without a special order or significant financial consequences. However, 401(k) accounts and Pensions have to be divided pursuant to Qualified Order. Some IRAs require a qualified order for division, though less common. Dividing 401(k) Accounts and Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO)The purpose of dividing a 401(k) using a Qualified Order is to avoid any tax consequences or penalties when transferring a share of said account to the other party. Some retirement plans have different requirements than others. In most plans, so long as the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) is drafted properly, signed by the Judge and certified, it will allow the transfer of a portion of the 401K account into a separate retirement account established in the name of the other party. The transfer from one account to another using a QDRO waives the typical 10% penalty for an early withdrawal. Sometimes QDROs can allow the person who the account is being transferred to, to take out a portion of said account in cash. In this scenario, the plan administrator and plan documents must allow for this within the way the plan was initially set up, and not all plans allow this. Additionally, while these funds typically will not be subjected to a 10% penalty, the person receiving the funds as cash will still have to pay the appropriate taxes on the disbursement in accordance with their income tax bracket. However, rolling the share from the 401(k) account into a separate retirement account, where no cash is withdrawn, usually prohibits tax consequences from occurring. What about Dividing Pensions in Divorce?Dividing pension plans is different than other retirement accounts. Pensions are not defined benefits. There generally is not an account sitting somewhere with a defined amount in it to be divided. The value of a pension typically involves many factors, including but not limited to the length of the employee’s employment. Typically, dividing a pension plan in Illinois involves a “Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order” (QILDRO) at the time the divorce is finalized. But, the QILDRO really only serves to notify the pension plan administrator that there is a share of the pension plan that belongs to a spouse. Usually, a Calculation Order must be entered by the Judge at the time of the participant’s retirement so that the pension plan knows how much to pay the now ex-spouse. This means if a share of your ex-spouse’s pension account was awarded to you in a divorce, you will need to seek legal input when your ex-spouse is ready to retire. Dividing assets in a divorce can be complicated, especially when a couple has multiple retirement investment accounts that include a mix like pension plans and 401(k) accounts. Be sure your rights to and share of pension plans and 401(k)s are protected in your divorce. Feel free to contact Anderson & Boback when you need accurate legal advice from family law attorneys with deep expertise in dividing retirement accounts in divorce. THIS ARTICLE WAS PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED AT: https://illinoislawforyou.com/property-division/dividing-retirement-accounts-in-divorce/ Frequently clients have questions about restricting parental responsibilities in Illinois. Usually they say something like, “I have concerns with my children’s safety when they’re with my ex; can I restrict his (or her) parenting time?”
So and what happens when a child’s parent is failing at being a responsible parent? If there are reasonable concerns about a child’s safety during parenting time with the other parent, seeking input from the court becomes necessary. Parenting Time and the Child’s Best Interest In Illinois, courts are interested in what is in a child’s best interests. Courts decide issues of parenting time and decision-making responsibilities by determining what is in the child’s best interest. Courts encourage families to maintain strong relationships. There is a presumption that both the mother and father are fit to parent their child. Therefore, courts should not place any restrictions on a parent’s parenting time unless evidence proves that doing so is in the child’s best interests. Pursuant to Section 603.10 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, a party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the other parent engaged in conduct that seriously endangered the child’s mental, moral, or physical health, or that significantly impaired the child’s emotional development. If this is proven after a hearing, then the court will enter an order as necessary to protect the child. Once this is proven, entry of an order is mandatory. It is common to hear allegations relating to “bad parenting” in court. Sometimes a parent just does not like the other parent’s parenting style. Sometimes a parent wants to have more control. Sometimes a parent still hasn’t moved on from their previous relationship with the other parent. The court is not there to sort through the parties’ emotions. When a child is involved in a case before the court, the court’s number one priority is to protect that child, as the child’s life and future is being significantly impacted by the court proceedings. Parental Responsibility Cases Where Parenting Time is Restricted Some examples of cases where parenting time is restricted involve physical and emotional abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, parent alienation, mental illness, removal of child from the court’s jurisdiction, etc. As you can see, these types of allegations are very serious and the court cannot take them lightly. When petitions are filed requesting restrictions to parenting time they are usually presented to the court on an emergency basis. A temporary order may be entered until an evidentiary hearing is held. Sometimes the court appoints an attorney on behalf of the child to help investigate the allegations. These are usually attorneys serving in the capacity of a guardian ad litem or a child representative. Restricting Parenting Time and Orders Protecting Children If the court determines that a restriction to parenting time is necessary to protect the child, the court must restrict parenting time how they see fit. An order could reduce parenting time or even stop parenting time altogether. The court is also able to order that certain third-parties be barred from being present during a party’s parenting time. If parenting time is only temporarily restricted, then the court might order the restricted parent to complete certain requirements before the court will modify its temporary restriction. A parent could be ordered to take parenting classes, anger management classes, or even to attend therapy sessions. If there are issues of substance abuse, the court can order a party to complete drug or alcohol abuse treatment if it is the basis for their restriction. Parents can be prohibited from using or possessing alcohol or drugs during their parenting time and for a specified time before their parenting time begins. Parenting time can be ordered to be supervised. Sometimes the parties agree to a supervisor. This often happens when there is a neutral family member, like a parent or sibling of one of the parties. When parents cannot agree to a supervisor the court can order supervised parenting time at a facility or with a professional supervisor. There is usually some sort of cost associated with supervised parenting time at a facility or with a professional. When parents are no longer together, sharing parental responsibilities isn’t always easy especially when one parent isn’t caring for the child appropriately. Contact our family law attorneys today if you have questions about the process of restricting parental responsibility. THIS ARTICLE WAS PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED AT: https://illinoislawforyou.com/child-custody/restricting-parental-responsibility-in-illinois/ |
AuthorArchives
August 2022
Categories |