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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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).

"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?

"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?