If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
criminal visitation interference
Every person who, in violation of the visitation provisions of a court order
relating to child custody, detains or conceals a child with the intent to deprive another person of his or her rights to visitation shall be guilty of unlawful visitation interference. 720 ILCS 5/10-5.5(b). rest of legal brief at http://www.fathersrights.org |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
criminal visitation interference
"fathersrights" wrote in message
... Every person who, in violation of the visitation provisions of a court order relating to child custody, detains or conceals a child with the intent to deprive another person of his or her rights to visitation shall be guilty of unlawful visitation interference. 720 ILCS 5/10-5.5(b). rest of legal brief at http://www.fathersrights.org The punishment for such an offence shall be a stern look from the judge at the CP for being such an idiot for not coming to the court so that they can do it to the NCP themselves, all the while giving the appearance that it's legal for them to do so, and allowing the court to make a bit more money off the NCP (and perhaps raise the NCP's C$ a little bit higher so that they can never afford some pesky attorney to take up any kind of legal challenge, and so that some obscure "lesson" can be taught to them at the same time. Example 1: Raise the NCP's C$ to more then twice their gross pay. Example 2: Not to bitch to the court ever again about the CP interfering with the children's relationship with the NCP. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
criminal visitation interference
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "fathersrights" wrote in message ... Every person who, in violation of the visitation provisions of a court order relating to child custody, detains or conceals a child with the intent to deprive another person of his or her rights to visitation shall be guilty of unlawful visitation interference. 720 ILCS 5/10-5.5(b). rest of legal brief at http://www.fathersrights.org The punishment for such an offence shall be a stern look from the judge at the CP for being such an idiot for not coming to the court so that they can do it to the NCP themselves, all the while giving the appearance that it's legal for them to do so, and allowing the court to make a bit more money off the NCP (and perhaps raise the NCP's C$ a little bit higher so that they can never afford some pesky attorney to take up any kind of legal challenge, and so that some obscure "lesson" can be taught to them at the same time. Example 1: Raise the NCP's C$ to more then twice their gross pay. Example 2: Not to bitch to the court ever again about the CP interfering with the children's relationship with the NCP. Wanna bet this law results in a stronger penalty when an NCP dad keeps a child too long than when the CP mom interferes with the dad's rights? Oh yeah, thanks right. When the NCP dad keeps the child too long that is custodial interference or kidnapping. Sorry, I forgot. When dads do it, it's a felony. When moms do it, it's a "petty offense" the first two times and doesn't rise to the level of a misdemeanor until there are two prior convictions. The cited statute makes this offense sound more like a parking ticket where the fine is waived than a serious deterrent for moms to not interfere with visitation. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
criminal visitation interference
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "fathersrights" wrote in message ... Every person who, in violation of the visitation provisions of a court order relating to child custody, detains or conceals a child with the intent to deprive another person of his or her rights to visitation shall be guilty of unlawful visitation interference. 720 ILCS 5/10-5.5(b). rest of legal brief at http://www.fathersrights.org The punishment for such an offence shall be a stern look from the judge at the CP for being such an idiot for not coming to the court so that they can do it to the NCP themselves, all the while giving the appearance that it's legal for them to do so, and allowing the court to make a bit more money off the NCP (and perhaps raise the NCP's C$ a little bit higher so that they can never afford some pesky attorney to take up any kind of legal challenge, and so that some obscure "lesson" can be taught to them at the same time. Example 1: Raise the NCP's C$ to more then twice their gross pay. Example 2: Not to bitch to the court ever again about the CP interfering with the children's relationship with the NCP. Wanna bet this law results in a stronger penalty when an NCP dad keeps a child too long than when the CP mom interferes with the dad's rights? Oh yeah, thanks right. When the NCP dad keeps the child too long that is custodial interference or kidnapping. Sorry, I forgot. When dads do it, it's a felony. When moms do it, it's a "petty offense" the first two times and doesn't rise to the level of a misdemeanor until there are two prior convictions. The cited statute makes this offense sound more like a parking ticket where the fine is waived than a serious deterrent for moms to not interfere with visitation. Yeah, it goes from a stern look to a scowl after the second offence. That is, provided the court will listen to the NCP "whining" about how the CP is screwing around with the kids more then once. Good luck with that one. Oh, and if the radfems hear about how the court scowled more then once at one of the Sisterhood, they'd have the judges testicles in a jar in short order. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
criminal visitation interference
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "fathersrights" wrote in message ... Every person who, in violation of the visitation provisions of a court order relating to child custody, detains or conceals a child with the intent to deprive another person of his or her rights to visitation shall be guilty of unlawful visitation interference. 720 ILCS 5/10-5.5(b). rest of legal brief at http://www.fathersrights.org The punishment for such an offence shall be a stern look from the judge at the CP for being such an idiot for not coming to the court so that they can do it to the NCP themselves, all the while giving the appearance that it's legal for them to do so, and allowing the court to make a bit more money off the NCP (and perhaps raise the NCP's C$ a little bit higher so that they can never afford some pesky attorney to take up any kind of legal challenge, and so that some obscure "lesson" can be taught to them at the same time. Example 1: Raise the NCP's C$ to more then twice their gross pay. Example 2: Not to bitch to the court ever again about the CP interfering with the children's relationship with the NCP. Wanna bet this law results in a stronger penalty when an NCP dad keeps a child too long than when the CP mom interferes with the dad's rights? Oh yeah, thanks right. When the NCP dad keeps the child too long that is custodial interference or kidnapping. Sorry, I forgot. When dads do it, it's a felony. When moms do it, it's a "petty offense" the first two times and doesn't rise to the level of a misdemeanor until there are two prior convictions. The cited statute makes this offense sound more like a parking ticket where the fine is waived than a serious deterrent for moms to not interfere with visitation. Yeah, it goes from a stern look to a scowl after the second offence. That is, provided the court will listen to the NCP "whining" about how the CP is screwing around with the kids more then once. Good luck with that one. Oh, and if the radfems hear about how the court scowled more then once at one of the Sisterhood, they'd have the judges testicles in a jar in short order. The cited statute also has language stating "convictions" under this law do not subject the violating parent to civil contempt citations under divorce decree law. I sure wouldn't point to this statute as an example of how family law treats both parents equitably. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
criminal visitation interference
Wrong... they often jail the malicious mother! Or at least probation so she
is afraid to recommit the crime. "Dusty" wrote in message ... "fathersrights" wrote in message ... Every person who, in violation of the visitation provisions of a court order relating to child custody, detains or conceals a child with the intent to deprive another person of his or her rights to visitation shall be guilty of unlawful visitation interference. 720 ILCS 5/10-5.5(b). rest of legal brief at http://www.fathersrights.org The punishment for such an offence shall be a stern look from the judge at the CP for being such an idiot for not coming to the court so that they can do it to the NCP themselves, all the while giving the appearance that it's legal for them to do so, and allowing the court to make a bit more money off the NCP (and perhaps raise the NCP's C$ a little bit higher so that they can never afford some pesky attorney to take up any kind of legal challenge, and so that some obscure "lesson" can be taught to them at the same time. Example 1: Raise the NCP's C$ to more then twice their gross pay. Example 2: Not to bitch to the court ever again about the CP interfering with the children's relationship with the NCP. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
criminal visitation interference
This statute is a wonderful tool to force compliance with a visitation order
and it is stupid to argue it isnt when you obviously have never seen it in action!Your loser negative opinions do not serve fathers well! "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "fathersrights" wrote in message ... Every person who, in violation of the visitation provisions of a court order relating to child custody, detains or conceals a child with the intent to deprive another person of his or her rights to visitation shall be guilty of unlawful visitation interference. 720 ILCS 5/10-5.5(b). rest of legal brief at http://www.fathersrights.org The punishment for such an offence shall be a stern look from the judge at the CP for being such an idiot for not coming to the court so that they can do it to the NCP themselves, all the while giving the appearance that it's legal for them to do so, and allowing the court to make a bit more money off the NCP (and perhaps raise the NCP's C$ a little bit higher so that they can never afford some pesky attorney to take up any kind of legal challenge, and so that some obscure "lesson" can be taught to them at the same time. Example 1: Raise the NCP's C$ to more then twice their gross pay. Example 2: Not to bitch to the court ever again about the CP interfering with the children's relationship with the NCP. Wanna bet this law results in a stronger penalty when an NCP dad keeps a child too long than when the CP mom interferes with the dad's rights? Oh yeah, thanks right. When the NCP dad keeps the child too long that is custodial interference or kidnapping. Sorry, I forgot. When dads do it, it's a felony. When moms do it, it's a "petty offense" the first two times and doesn't rise to the level of a misdemeanor until there are two prior convictions. The cited statute makes this offense sound more like a parking ticket where the fine is waived than a serious deterrent for moms to not interfere with visitation. Yeah, it goes from a stern look to a scowl after the second offence. That is, provided the court will listen to the NCP "whining" about how the CP is screwing around with the kids more then once. Good luck with that one. Oh, and if the radfems hear about how the court scowled more then once at one of the Sisterhood, they'd have the judges testicles in a jar in short order. The cited statute also has language stating "convictions" under this law do not subject the violating parent to civil contempt citations under divorce decree law. I sure wouldn't point to this statute as an example of how family law treats both parents equitably. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
criminal visitation interference
"fatherforever" wrote in message
... Wrong... they often jail the malicious mother! Or at least probation so she is afraid to recommit the crime. Really? Bet you can't give us ten (10) examples where the "malicious mother" was jailed under this law. And don't forget to include links for independent verification (this excludes your web site from the list). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
criminal visitation interference
"fatherforever" wrote in message
... This statute is a wonderful tool to force compliance with a visitation order and it is stupid to argue it isnt when you obviously have never seen it in action!Your loser negative opinions do not serve fathers well! Well now, since you allude to the fact that you have seen it in action, then you can site for us the court dockets that these instances took place. Give us five (5) examples that do -not- come from your web site. What state is this law from? Denial? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
criminal visitation interference
"fatherforever" wrote in message ... This statute is a wonderful tool to force compliance with a visitation order and it is stupid to argue it isnt when you obviously have never seen it in action!Your loser negative opinions do not serve fathers well! There is a lot written about this IL statute on the Internet. Since the first two offenses are considered petty offenses the CP can simply buy out the NCP's visitation rights, if cited by a peace officer, by posting a $75 petty offense bond. That is a far cry from being jailed for custodial interference as you have claimed. It isn't until the third conviction where the offense becomes a misdemeanor that the potential penalty increases to a fine of up to $2,500 and/or up to one year in jail. It would be helpful if you can describe what the fines increase to in actual application after conviction of a third offense, and do the courts use jail sentences for third offenses or just the chronic violators. And on another issue with this law, if an affirmative defense is to claim the fear of a bad outcome, wouldn't a CP withholding visitation simply make a claim of danger to the child long before a third citation for custodial interference? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Criminal surgeries/criminal wars | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | February 6th 07 08:03 PM |
Natl Website 4 good families & CPS interference | Fern5827 | Spanking | 0 | September 4th 04 02:56 PM |
WA new grp to help w DSHS interference &Kitsap Co. | Fern5827 | Spanking | 1 | August 23rd 04 10:40 PM |
Let Innocent have children & Families Without Gov. Interference | Tina | Kids Health | 0 | August 3rd 04 05:04 AM |
How can I prosecute Child Stealing / Custodial Interference (CALPC 278.5) | JR | Child Support | 132 | June 4th 04 06:10 AM |