denying visits

Where the custodial parent seeks to restrict visitation rights, he or she
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the
existing visitation seriously endangers the child. (Griffiths v. Griffiths
(1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 126, 129; In re Marriage of Neat (1981), 101 Ill.
App. 3d 1046, 1048.) In re Marriage of Anderson, 474 N.E.2d 911, 130 Ill.
App. 3d 684 (1985).

A restriction on visitation is action which limits, restrains, or confines
visitation within bounds. (In Re Marriage of Tisckos/ Stewart (1987), 161
Ill. App. 3d 302, 310,514 N.E.2d 523, 528.) A termination of visitation is a
restriction (In re Marriage of Dunn (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 247, 254, 508
N.E.2d 250, 255), as is a prohibition on overnight visitation. Likewise, a
requirement that visitation be supervised, occur in the home of the
custodial parent, or outside the home of the noncustodial parent is a
restriction. (Tisckos/Stewart, 161 Ill. App. 3d at 310, 514 N.E.2d at 528.)
In re the Marriage LaTour, 608 N.E.2d 1339, 241 Ill. App. 3d 500, (1993)

more case law on http://www.fathers-rights.com

"fathersrights" wrote in message
news
Where the custodial parent seeks to restrict visitation rights, he or she
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the
existing visitation seriously endangers the child.

NOT when the custodial parent is the mother.

(Griffiths v. Griffiths
(1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 126, 129; In re Marriage of Neat (1981), 101 Ill.
App. 3d 1046, 1048.) In re Marriage of Anderson, 474 N.E.2d 911, 130 Ill.
App. 3d 684 (1985).

A restriction on visitation is action which limits, restrains, or confines
visitation within bounds. (In Re Marriage of Tisckos/ Stewart (1987), 161
Ill. App. 3d 302, 310,514 N.E.2d 523, 528.) A termination of visitation is
a
restriction (In re Marriage of Dunn (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 247, 254, 508
N.E.2d 250, 255), as is a prohibition on overnight visitation. Likewise, a
requirement that visitation be supervised, occur in the home of the
custodial parent, or outside the home of the noncustodial parent is a
restriction. (Tisckos/Stewart, 161 Ill. App. 3d at 310, 514 N.E.2d at
528.)
In re the Marriage LaTour, 608 N.E.2d 1339, 241 Ill. App. 3d 500, (1993)

more case law on http://www.fathers-rights.com

On Apr 2, 10:55?pm, "Chris" wrote:
"fathersrights" wrote in message

news
Where the custodial parent seeks to restrict visitation rights, he or she
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the
existing visitation seriously endangers the child.

NOT when the custodial parent is the mother.





(Griffiths v. Griffiths
(1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 126, 129; In re Marriage of Neat (1981), 101 Ill.
App. 3d 1046, 1048.) In re Marriage of Anderson, 474 N.E.2d 911, 130 Ill.
App. 3d 684 (1985).

A restriction on visitation is action which limits, restrains, or confines
visitation within bounds. (In Re Marriage of Tisckos/ Stewart (1987), 161
Ill. App. 3d 302, 310,514 N.E.2d 523, 528.) A termination of visitation is
a
restriction (In re Marriage of Dunn (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 247, 254, 508
N.E.2d 250, 255), as is a prohibition on overnight visitation. Likewise, a
requirement that visitation be supervised, occur in the home of the
custodial parent, or outside the home of the noncustodial parent is a
restriction. (Tisckos/Stewart, 161 Ill. App. 3d at 310, 514 N.E.2d at
528.)
In re the Marriage LaTour, 608 N.E.2d 1339, 241 Ill. App. 3d 500, (1993)

more case law onhttp://www.fathers-rights.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Technically yes it should apply is the custodial is the mother.
However, we know how that goes.

Custody laws mean squat.

"Chris" wrote

"fathersrights" wrote
.................

NOT when the custodial parent is the mother.
==
Chris, fathersrights is a long time scammer/spammer who is a for-profit
peddler
of worthless crap to NCPs. If you feel compelled to engage him, please at
least
trim his posts to as not to perpetuate his BS.

Me thinks you protest too much. If the materials weren't effective you
feminists wouldnt hate them so much. You totally neglect all the FREE help
for fathers available at http://www.fathersrights.org; And fathers,if you
think custody law doesn"t control in custody cases, no wonder you lost your
case.
"Gini" wrote in message
news:QBrQh.2833$gb6.2603@trndny07...

"Chris" wrote

"fathersrights" wrote
................

NOT when the custodial parent is the mother.
==
Chris, fathersrights is a long time scammer/spammer who is a for-profit
peddler
of worthless crap to NCPs. If you feel compelled to engage him, please at
least
trim his posts to as not to perpetuate his BS.

"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
Me thinks you protest too much. If the materials weren't effective you
feminists wouldnt hate them so much. You totally neglect all the FREE help
for fathers available at http://www.fathersrights.org; And fathers,if
you
think custody law doesn"t control in custody cases, no wonder you lost
your
case.

Free help that offers false hope is worthless. You have never been able to
back up your claims when challenged by posters here who know better than to
accept your statements at face value. Until you can back up your theories
with facts and cites there is no way to consider your materials as being
"effective".

On Apr 6, 8:44�pm, "fathersrights" wrote:
Me thinks you protest too much. If the materials weren't effective you
feminists wouldnt hate them so much. You totally neglect all the FREE help
for fathers available at *http://www.fathersrights.org;*And fathers,if you
think custody law doesn"t control in custody cases, no wonder you lost your
case."Gini" wrote in message

news:QBrQh.2833$gb6.2603@trndny07...





"Chris" *wrote

"fathersrights" *wrote
................

NOT when the custodial parent is the mother.
==
Chris, fathersrights is a long time scammer/spammer who is a for-profit
peddler
of worthless crap to NCPs. *If you feel compelled to engage him, please at
least
trim his posts to as not to perpetuate his BS.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

999/1000 times custody is decided by case law, not state statute.

TACTIC 1
Pleadings requesting only limited visitation are the best evidence of an
unwillingness to facilitate! Use those pleadings as an example in your
closing argument. Argue: "My client seeks equal time for the parents. Mrs. X
seeks to limit the father's time to every other weekend. Mrs. X's pleadings
.... (lift up her pleadings).. and arguments before this court ... are the
best evidence of her unwillingness to further a close and continuing
relationship between the child and the father!" (A major AND CASE WINNING
element in best interests statutes)

see more FREE case winning tactics at
http://www.fathersrights.org/tactics.html
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
Me thinks you protest too much. If the materials weren't effective you
feminists wouldnt hate them so much. You totally neglect all the FREE
help
for fathers available at http://www.fathersrights.org; And fathers,if
you
think custody law doesn"t control in custody cases, no wonder you lost
your
case.

Free help that offers false hope is worthless. You have never been able
to
back up your claims when challenged by posters here who know better than
to
accept your statements at face value. Until you can back up your theories
with facts and cites there is no way to consider your materials as being
"effective".

Case law is what was quoted in the original post. Common sense confirms the
courts ruling that you cant make a logical case to deny a parent the RIGHT
to babysit over third parties.
"Relayer" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 6, 8:44?pm, "fathersrights" wrote:
Me thinks you protest too much. If the materials weren't effective you
feminists wouldnt hate them so much. You totally neglect all the FREE help
for fathers available at http://www.fathersrights.org;And fathers,if you
think custody law doesn"t control in custody cases, no wonder you lost
your
case."Gini" wrote in message

news:QBrQh.2833$gb6.2603@trndny07...





"Chris" wrote

"fathersrights" wrote
................

NOT when the custodial parent is the mother.
==
Chris, fathersrights is a long time scammer/spammer who is a for-profit
peddler
of worthless crap to NCPs. If you feel compelled to engage him, please
at
least
trim his posts to as not to perpetuate his BS.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

999/1000 times custody is decided by case law, not state statute.

With your attitude you are guaranteed to lose which you obviously have if
you think this is false hope.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
Me thinks you protest too much. If the materials weren't effective you
feminists wouldnt hate them so much. You totally neglect all the FREE
help
for fathers available at http://www.fathersrights.org; And fathers,if
you
think custody law doesn"t control in custody cases, no wonder you lost
your
case.

Free help that offers false hope is worthless. You have never been able
to
back up your claims when challenged by posters here who know better than
to
accept your statements at face value. Until you can back up your theories
with facts and cites there is no way to consider your materials as being
"effective".