ILLINOIS DIVORCE LAW BLOG

Child custody and guardianship are legal terms which are sometimes used to describe the legal and practical relationship between a parent and his or her child, such as the right of the parent to make decisions for the child, and the parent’s duty to care for the child.

Residence and contact issues typically arise in proceedings involving divorce (dissolution of marriage), annulment and other legal proceedings where children may be involved. In most jurisdictions the issue of which parent the child will reside with is determined in accordance with the best interests of the child standard.
Continue reading →

The Associated Press reports on an interesting case arising in Cook County. The divorced parties apparently have a Joint Parenting Agreement, providing for the parents to consult with each other over the major decisions in the child’s developmental life. Mom, in this case, wanted to have the 9 year old boy circumcised. Dad objected, and filed a petition in court to enjoin, or block, the procedure. The case is about the circumcision, but it also stands for the principle that a well drafted joint custody agreement has some teeth to it, that is, if the non-residential parent has some “say so” in the developmental life of the child, he must be more than a “consultant.” In this case, Dad didn’t want the boy to undergo the procedure involuntarily. I also understand that the boy himself did not want to be circumcised.

——AP——A judge has sided with a divorced father who did not want his 9-year-old son circumcised, in a case that has drawn attention from groups opposed to the surgical procedure.

Cook County Circuit Judge Jordan Kaplan’s ruling, issued Tuesday, said the boy can decide for himself about circumcision when he turns 18. Until then, there will be no circumcision, a surgery that removes the foreskin of the penis.

The Associated Press is not naming the parents to protect the child’s privacy. The father was born and raised in Poland; The mother is from Slovakia. Both now live in suburban Chicago.

A 2003 divorce decree gave the boy’s father the right to offer advice on medical decisions.

The father opposed circumcision because he believed it could cause his son long-term physical and psychological harm. The child’s mother wanted the procedure done to prevent recurring infections.

When the two could not resolve their dispute, the father sued to block the circumcision.
Continue reading →

Custody Terminology and the Effect on Divorce Outcomes
Terminology in divorce carries weight: Which sounds better: Custody Decision, or Parenting Plan?

Senate Bill 2003, approved by the West Virginia Legislature during a special session in June 1999, started an overhaul of the state’s domestic relations system. The bill made changes in the divorce and child custody laws, changing terminology and adding steps to the process.

Michael Roe asks: In cases where Dads ask for custody, many times they are granted primary residential custody. Can you think of reasons why this maybe true?
Continue reading →

In Sutherlin the trial court was in error when to refused to address the issue of temporary custody of the children, in an action initiated by the wife to obtain an order of protection for herself against her husband.

The court should have found that the wife’s petition for the order of protection was not designed to interfere with the husband’s visitation with the children, and the record should have supported a finding that there was abuse committed by the husband against the wife sufficient to allow for an Order of Protection.

It was not an abuse of discretion by the trial court, the Illinois Appellate Court held, to refuse to order Grandparent visitation when the parents of the children had not agreed to it. IRMO Ross

The court held that in view of the Wickham decision ( holding that the grandparent visitation pursuant to section 607(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act to be uncomstitutional), there was no basis to permit the grandparents a right to petition fo rvisitation.

Beautiful, wealthy and bright, but subject to the viscissitudes of life:

Two months after television reports circulated about her husband Peter Cook’s alleged infidelity with an 18-year-old employee, Christie Brinkley has made it official: she’s seeking a divorce. Cook’s written apology to Brinkley ran in a newspaper column shortly after his alleged dalliance became public, but the apology failed to deter the former model and actress and Uptown Girl’s from filing for a dissolution of marriage.

According to Cook’s attorney, Brinkley filed for divorce on September 14, 2006 and the case is pending.

In Hartman v. Hartman, there was an action by the former husband to lower his child support payments from $1500 per month, to $500 per month, while providing $500 in maintenance. Mr. Hartman may have wished to do this to allow for some tax benefits for part of his monthly payments, as well as to lower his monthly support payout in total.

In any event, the court determined that the parents were litigating this issue in pursuit of their own pecuniary interests, and were not attentive to the best interest of their child. THe parents frmaed the issues around money, whereas the court saw the issue affecting the well-being of the parties’ child.

What did the court do? The court appointed a guardian ad litem to determine, within the context of the child support modification proceeding, what result would be in the best interest of the child. The court’s concern over the child’s interest being neglected trumped the parents’ interest in sorting out their finances.