Start Your Divorce Today - Premium Divorce Online

Page 12 of 15 < 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 >
Topic Options
#537299 - 07/30/09 02:32 PM Re: Exactly..."fought"... [Re: Tweeby]
Yes_Dad Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 08/23/08
Posts: 7406
Well, I certainly agree lawyers are the biggest blight on divorce there is. The promise the stars and deliver nothing. That's why I go pro-se. I have no financial interest because (at least here) CS is what it is. There is no arguing it and there is no negotiating it. It is a very simple formula.

Top
#537300 - 07/30/09 02:41 PM Re: Exactly..."fought"... [Re: Yes_Dad]
Yes_Dad Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 08/23/08
Posts: 7406
This is the Illinois site

my keywords were contempt+visitation

These go back to 1996

Zero results were found. Perhaps you all can using different keywords

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/archive.asp

Top
#537301 - 07/30/09 02:54 PM Re: Actually, it is... [Re: Yes_Dad]
Cassie23 Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 14784
I know those cases can't be ruled out I was agreeing with you.

I found that on holysmokes and only threw it out there because I didn't want to actually look for the case...thought someone else might do that! LOL

I agree with you, I think there may be some out there- I just haven't found any yet!

Top
#537302 - 07/30/09 03:01 PM Re: Actually, it is... [Re: Cassie23]
Cassie23 Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 14784
This dude supposedly won some cash: http://www.marylandfathers.org/FUERhist1980s.html

1980/08/08 -- Father wins $25,000 in Visitation Lawsuit
[Virginia] Father Awarded $25,000: Ex-wife Prevented Visitation was a front page article in the Washington Post for 8 August 1980.

A Fairfax County jury, in what legal experts say is the first verdict of its kind, has awarded $25,000, to a divorced father who claims he suffered severe emotional problems because his former wife prevented him from visiting their children.

The verdict was won by Harold H. Memmer, a civilian Army worker at Fort Belvoir, who had become so depressed, his sister testified, that she feared "he would do away with himself."

An official of the American Bar Association's family law section yesterday described the award as "precedent-setting" and predicted it would serve as "a warning" to divorced parents who attempt to evade court orders granting visitation rights to their former spouses.

"I think this is very significant," agreed Paul M. Robinson, acting president of the Northern Virginia-Washington chapter of Fathers United for Equal Rights, a group of divorced fathers. "It's always been difficult to get courts to enforce visitation rights." But it was a bittersweet victory for Memmer, 48, who lives alone in a split-level house in the Woodlawn Terrace area of Fairfax County just north of the Army post. The three children involved in the case shunned him as they left the courtroom of Fairfax Circuit Judge Thomas J. Middleton. a "When I left the courtroom, my daughters wouldn't talk with me," Memmer said yesterday.

In his lawsuit against his former wife, Memmer charged that she repeatedly thwarted his efforts to visit their three daughters despite court orders allowing him visitation rights. Memmer alleged that his wife, who has remarried twice since their 1976 divorce and now lives in Evansville, Ind., had encouraged his daughters not to talk to him, hung up when he called on the telephone and "vilified" him in the children's presence. [...]

The jury [...] decided Wednesday that the former Mrs. Memmer, whose present married name is Day, [...] "intentionally inflicted severe emotional stress upon the children's father."

Top
#537303 - 07/30/09 03:13 PM I guess IL isn't the only state... [Re: Yes_Dad]
almostheaven Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/membersonly/127parentingtime.pdf
Pg 4

Enforcement Through
Contempt Proceedings

Any person with parenting time or visitation rights or subject to a parenting time or visitation order may bring an action for contempt for failure to comply with, or for interference with, the order. A court may impose a fine, a term of imprisonment, or both on a person found guilty of contempt. The maximum fine and *****term of imprisonment***** is $250 and 30 days for a first offense, $500 and 60 days for a second offense, and $1,000 and 90 days for a third or subsequent offense. The court must require the convicted person to pay all court costs and the reasonable attorney’s fees of the other party. The court may award compensatory parenting time or visitation to the person whose rights were affected.16

Also, even Glenn Sacks doesn't delude himself into thinking mothers are "never" prosecuted...
http://www.ilovemychildrentoo.org/myths.htm

#14: “Prosecutions of fathers who violate child support mandates are common, whereas prosecutions of mothers who violate visitation orders are *****rare*****.”

Neil Chethik, “Law Backs the Right to Parental Visits,” Detroit Free Press, May 28, 1995, p.2J.

Cathy Young, Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, The Free Press, 1999, page 209.
_________________________
Char Fox

Top
#537304 - 07/30/09 03:15 PM Hmmm, IN too... [Re: almostheaven]
almostheaven Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/parenting/index.html

6. Enforcement of Parenting Time

A. Contempt Sanctions. Court orders regarding parenting time must be followed by both parents. Unjustified violations of any of the provisions contained in the order may subject the offender to contempt sanctions. These sanctions may include fine, *****imprisonment*****, and/or community service.

B. Injunctive Relief. Under Indiana law, a noncustodial parent who regularly pays support and is barred from parenting time by the custodial parent may file an application for an injunction to enforce parenting time under Ind. Code § 31-17-4-4.

C. Criminal Penalties. Interference with custody or visitation rights may be a crime. Ind. Code § 35-42-3-4.

D. Attorney Fees. In any court action to enforce an order granting or denying parenting time, a court may award reasonable attorney fees and expenses of litigation. A court may consider whether the parent seeking attorney fees substantially prevailed and whether the parent violating the order did so knowingly or intentionally. A court can also award attorney fees and expenses against a parent who pursues a frivolous or vexatious court action.
_________________________
Char Fox

Top
#537305 - 07/30/09 03:17 PM And FL... [Re: almostheaven]
almostheaven Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
Though they don't mention jail, they leave it open, but they DO have laws governing visitation interference.

http://www.jshawnhunter.com/Interference.htm

Subsection 61.13 Custody and support of children; visitation rights; power of court in making orders.

(c) When a custodial parents refuses to honor a noncustodial parent’s or grandparent’s visitation rights without proper cause, the court shall, after calculating the amount of visitation improperly denied, award the noncustodial parent or grandparent a sufficient amount of extra visitation to compensate the noncustodial or grandparent, which visitation shall be ordered as expeditiously as possible in a manner consistent with the best interests of the child and scheduled in a manner that is convenient for the person deprived of visitation. In ordering any makeup visitation, the court shall schedule such visitation in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of the child or children and that is convenient for the noncustodial parent or grandparent. In addition, the court:

1. May order the custodial parent to pay reasonable court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the noncustodial parent or grandparents to enforce their visitation rights or make up improperly denied visitation;

2. May order the custodial parent to attend the parenting course approved by the judicial circuit;

3. May order the custodial parent to do community service if the order will not interfere with the welfare of the child;

4. May order the custodial parent to have the financial burden of promoting frequent and continuing contact when the custodial parent and child reside further than 60 miles from the noncustodial parent;

5. May award custody, rotating custody, or primary residence to the noncustodial parent, upon the request of the noncustodial parent, if the award is in the best interests of the child; or

6. May impose any other reasonable sanction as a result of noncompliance.

(d) A person who violates this subsection may be punished by contempt of court or other remedies as the court deems appropriate.

Fl. Stat. Subsection 61.34(4) (a) (2001).
_________________________
Char Fox

Top
#537306 - 07/30/09 03:35 PM Re: Actually, it is... [Re: Cassie23]
Yes_Dad Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 08/23/08
Posts: 7406
[quote]I know those cases can't be ruled out I was agreeing with you.

I found that on holysmokes and only threw it out there because I didn't want to actually look for the case...thought someone else might do that! LOL

I agree with you, I think there may be some out there- I just haven't found any yet! [/quote]

The site is pretty funny but you have the question the owners mental state. It's basically an anti-everything site with a bit of smoking gun thrown in.

What you put out was just a "letter" from a Usenet user if you remember that (well, it's still around). It's dobutful any newpapers on-line archives would go back that far.

I'd love to see an example, as I know when I do take action for increased visitation, she will panic and revert to her old tricks.

As I have said, Illinois is the only state with a law against visitation interference and it is NOT a contempt of court offense

(a) As used in this Section, the terms "child", "detain", and "lawful custodian" shall have the meanings ascribed to them in Section 10-5 of this Code.

(b) 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.

(c) A person committing unlawful visitation interference is guilty of a petty offense. However, any person violating this Section after 2 prior convictions of unlawful visitation interference is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) Any law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing an act in violation of this Section shall issue to that person a notice to appear.

(e) The notice shall:

(1) be in writing;

(2) state the name of the person and his address, if

known;

(3) set forth the nature of the offense;

(4) be signed by the officer issuing the notice; and

(5) request the person to appear before a court at a

certain time and place.

(f) Upon failure of the person to appear, a summons or warrant of arrest may be issued.

(g) It is an affirmative defense that:

(1) a person or lawful custodian committed the act

to protect the child from imminent physical harm, provided that the defendant's belief that there was physical harm imminent was reasonable and that the defendant's conduct in withholding visitation rights was a reasonable response to the harm believed imminent;

(2) the act was committed with the mutual consent of

all parties having a right to custody and visitation of the child; or

(3) the act was otherwise authorized by law.

(h) A person convicted of unlawful visitation interference shall not be subject to a civil contempt citation for the same conduct for violating visitation provisions of a court order issued under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act


There has yet to be a single conviction. A Class A is also known as a "petty" offense. Other petty offenses are spitting and jaywalking, as I said, so that tells you how seious it is taken. And you have to be found guilty 3 times before they will do anything.

The simple fact of the matter is they aren't throwing mothers in jail for visitation interference. You know, even with a CO in hand, the cops will say it's a civil matter and not do a thing.

The entire point of this thread has become when the laws are equalized, then men should be tossed in the clink for non-payment, otherwise, removing their license is punishment enough. When Mom goes to jail for visitation or misuse of CS, then things will be equal. A LOT of men don't pay CS because they don't love their kids. They don't pay because they don't want to give the mother the money, simply for it to be used for her benefit. When a mother (I say mother because 85% of NCP's are mothers and most men NCP's receive little if any support) has to show the court, upon demand, how the money was spent, then things are equal. The NCP has to show their income from all sources. The CP should also be liable to show how the money was spent. Ok, they have to save receipts and keep a spreadsheet. WHA WHA WHA. It's free money. CS is the only income that is not taxed that also dosen't require how it's spent. In MY case, it was purely obvious that she was using it on herself and her husband (she even paid her husbands CS out of my kids CS).

Top
#537307 - 07/30/09 03:57 PM Re: Actually, it is... [Re: Yes_Dad]
Cassie23 Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 14784
Yeah it sucks. I would like to hear more from M5 on the case where that BM went to jail... I don't remember specifics.

It sucks the CS laws compared to the laws for withholding visitation, as some states don't have any at all :(

Top
#537308 - 07/30/09 04:21 PM Re: Actually, it is... [Re: Cassie23]
Yes_Dad Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 08/23/08
Posts: 7406
[quote]Yeah it sucks. I would like to hear more from M5 on the case where that BM went to jail... I don't remember specifics.

It sucks the CS laws compared to the laws for withholding visitation, as some states don't have any at all :( [/quote]

I remember M5 saying this but there was no citation. It certainly would be "news" if it happened, since it's so rare.

Every state has CS laws. My state is the only one with laws regarding specifically to visitation interference and it has the "bite" of a 90 year old man (or any West Virginian). It has no teeth. Someone said "The judge threatens". Well, EVERYTHING a judge does when it comes to a man is a threat because 99% of the time, it's the woman with the complaint of one kind or another.

I am also firmly convinced the lack of CS payment is mostly due to the man thinking the woman is going to use it on herself, as was the case in my case. One of my "ex's" FAVORITE sayings when we were together, especially early on, was "We are on a spending freeze" as she handled the money, meaning nothing frivolus could be purchased.

I've never talked about this before but the amount of money I was making (net) 5 years prior to the divorce (and in the same house) was almost exactly the same I was paying her in support. I spent the first 5 years of our marriage building my career (which she was NO help..in fact, more of a hinderance). I took a huge job 3 years before the divorce that pushed my earnings WAY up. She was getting more in various support in 1995 than I even MADE in 1990. All3 kids in 1990 (same house) were well fed, well clothed, IN DAY CARE at the time (even though she didn't work) etc. Fast forward 5 years, we divorce, she gets more in support than I had made 5 years older and my kids would come out dressed in rags saying "Mom says we are on a spending freeze and you need to buy us some new clothes). Otherwise, they would spend the week in the same ratty clothing. YET, in the garage was either a Corvette, then a Caddilac and in the driveway was a brand new TOTALLY tricked up monster truck. She was using the money to buy her husband this stuff (buying his "love" I guess) and my kids suffered for it. Prior to moving into my 3500sq home, he was living in his parents basement. He didn't work. Neither did she. How do you think I felt picking them up for visitation as seeing THAT? It took every once of strength not to rip their Mom, and I assure you I didn't.

Top
Page 12 of 15 < 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 >

Moderator:  dsAdmin 


Resources & Tools
Start Your Divorce Online Start Your Divorce
Several Options to Get Started Today.
Divorce Tools Online Divorce Tools
Keeping it Simple to Get the Job Done.
Divorce Downloads Download Center
Instantly Download Books, Guides & Forms.
Divorce and Custody Books Discount Books
Over 100 of the Best Divorce & Custody Books.
Negotiate Online Negotiate Online
Settle your Divorce and Save.
Custody and Support Tracking Custody Scheduling
Make Sure You Document Everything.

Easily Connect With a Lawyer or Mediator
Have Divorce Professionals from Your Area Contact You!
Enter Your Zip Code: