Illinois Fathers

Great project idea for Fathers Day!

Sent to us in an unsolicited email, but from the author of this post, I can say that I’ve done this with my kids and it’s a lot of fun. With most cell phones able to record HD video these days, Windows Movie Maker or Apple iMovie  being very inexpensive and very easy to use. You can make very good slide shows and even goofy kid videos pretty easy.

(For my kids, the great Lego Diamond Caper was just utterly hilarious. Complete with voice overs from Grandma!)

p.s. Dibs to the Author of the video, Go Navy!

Thank you NPR. Excellent Story. Let’s see Illinois do similar things!

SB3283  passed the House Judiciary Committee today, but with amendment. The amendment is procedural and only affects how the Secretary of State will recover costs for reinstating licenses and gives the Secretary of State some time to implement the changes in their computer software. None of the changes recommended in the amendment affected the nature of the bill, so the bill is still intact from the Senate. Because of the amendment, it will require the bill to receive concurrence of the Senate, but since the changes are procedural, there’s no substantive debate to affect it in the Senate.

Congratulations for those who attended the hearing today and thank you all for those who called the members and let them know that this bill is important.

Correction: The Secretary of State’s office has withdrawn their proposed amendment. The Steven Watkins Bill now goes to the full House for what should be it’s final vote before going to the Governor!

Seems that the Steven Watkins Bill has been here before, in fact it was when it was House Bill 1604. But, the new incantation of the Steven Watkins Bill is alive and well having passed unanimously in the Senate. It is now back to the House for concurrence. Notable changes between the Senate version and the previous house version is the loss of the provisions allowing professional licenses from being suspended and the language that allowed visitation interference to be considered a change in circumstances allowing a change in custody was also cut. However, the majority of the bill remains intact and is still significantly better than the provisions today exist. This bill will go a long way to helping non-custodial parents see their children. For those who are interested in attending, the Senate Judiciary (Civil) Committee meets on Wednesday April 25, 2012 at 9:00am in Room C-1 of  the Stratton Building.

Steven Watkins life ended too prematurely in a fit of anger brought on by the divorce with his wife. Since that time, his mother Penny Watkins has held vigil in an attempt to see her grand daughter. She has, to date, not given up hope. As her fight continues to see her grand daughter, so to does the fight to get the Steven Watkins Memorial Act passed. Initially shot down in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then shot down on the Senate Floor. But it lives… again… Senator Sullivan, the current sponsor in the Senate, has worked diligently at finding a modification that would be acceptable by the Senate leaving everything intact on the original bill except the provision that removes professional licenses. And it passed, unanimously! Now, the Senate Bill moves to the House, which has already shown strong support for the original bill. So as hard as the opposition digs in, the bill still lives! As does Steven’s memory.

Child Support Advisory Committee:

Monday, March 19, 2012
1:30 – 3:30PM

401 South Clinton
7th floor, Video Conference Room
Chicago, IL 60601

and

509 South 6th Street
5th Floor, Video Conference Room
Springfield, IL 62701

This Committee will determine child support for several years. And as most know, they have stacked the deck with committee members that share the same point of view; and their views can be seen as hostile towards a balanced view, in particularly to the Non-Custodial Parenting community. In fact, NOT A SINGLE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THIS GROUP WAS APPOINTED. As these laws will be geared directly at our community, these meetings need close scrutiny. Presently, the committee backs a “shared income” model. However, their “shared income” model is an illusion at best. It will apply to hardly anyone. And it will create much more litigation regarding custody, particularly in light of IFLSC minimum parenting time recommendation. Unless the provisions are modified to set the “cliff” at least 10% below IFLSC shared parenting recommendations, their “shared income” model is disingenuous at best.

They need to know that there is great interest in their work and there are other states that are doing a much better job of finding a balance. This meeting falls under the Open Meetings Act. So you can record it. We suggest that you do not openly record it; we do not wish to intimidate. It may be better to be observed as taking copious notes. This Committee generally allows the “public” to comment during the meeting. However, remember, that is not a requirement. So if you wish to speak, be cordial, express your concerns, back your statements with research if you have research. We do not want to lose our ability to speak before this Committee.

Cook County Child Representative Continuing Legal Education Seminar:

Wednesday, March 21, 2012
12:00 – 1:30 PM

Daley Center, Room 1905
Chicago, IL

What was amazing was that once Vlastica v. Brend (challenging absolute immunity for GALs/CRs) came out, as well as HB2833 (proposing accountability in the GAL/CR system), they quickly came up with the attached “Child Reps as Targets: Defending against Personal and Professional attacks.” (Note: that some of the people participating are the ones that we hear the most complaints about. No surprise there.) Also interesting as it is usually the Child Rep that is ultimately responsible for severing ties or harshly limiting them between non-custodial parents and their children.

Now comes the shocker, the title of the next seminar is, “Practical Considerations of Estrangement/Alienation.” So it looks like the Bills being introduced in Springfield, as well as the recent meeting we had with Chief Judge Evans (as well as all the other scrutiny/pressure we have been exerting), may have caught their attention.

What to do? These seminars are part of the monthly seminars geared towards lawyers and judges involved in family law. However, we do not know of any policy restricting anyone from going. Like not wanting to lose our ability to speak before the Child Support Advisory Committee, we do not want to lose our ability to attend these meetings. We suggest if you are not a lawyer and you have a case before one of these judges, do not attend; if you attend and are not a lawyer, dress like a lawyer; do not get involved in discussion with the speakers; if you feel the need to speak, your comments should be limited to stating that you are glad that such an important topic is being addressed and that you wish to see more training on the subject; if you must ask a question, there better not be one negative/accusatory vibe in it. Leave that to one of the lawyers on this list. Even then, we would recommend  caution as we do not wish to scare them away from the topic. We want to encourage future seminars/education regarding the subject.

Feel free to idle chit-chat with other attendees before/after the seminar. If you chit-chat about Alienation, be unemotional about it. If you see your GAL/CR or opposing attorney in your case there, remain inconspicuous and leave quickly and quietly after the seminar. (Unless you want to be accused of being a stalker, threat, etc. Do not take a chance on hurting your case, or our cause. As many have seen the standards for OP’s are ridiculously fast and loose.)

There is usually a sign in sheet at these meetings; just state that you are not interested in CLE’s if you do not wish to sign in. This seminar does not fall under the Open Meetings Act. We cannot state this enough, do not do anything that would jeopardize our access in the future or our cause.

APRIL 2012, as adopted by the Illinois House of Representatives is now:

Stop Parental Alienation Awareness Month

Remember to help bring awareness to this devastating condition brought on by divorce next month!

Thank you Representative Jil Tracy for bringing such an important issue to light and helping raise awareness to this issue!

SB3626 (Sponsor Senator Antonio Munoz)   Hearing is February 28, 2012 before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. In an action for dissolution or in a post-judgment proceeding involving minor children, authorizes the court to order the parties to participate in integrative family therapy. Defines “integrative family therapy” as a therapy model specifically aimed at high-conflict dissolution of marriage or post-judgment proceedings that involve custody or visitation where minor children have or are at risk for developing a pathological condition or pathological conditions, including but not limited to depression, anxiety, and personality disorders, in the absence of intervention. Provides that facts adduced at therapy sessions shall not be considered in adjudicating the action unless stipulated by the parties. Allows the court to assess fees as equitable.

This helps get “cottage industry” folks out of the lives of kids, this therapy is about working together, not one that is winning/adversarial.

Senate Judiciary Committee:

Senator A. J. Wilhelmi (D) – (217) 782-8800
Senator John G. Mulroe (D) – (217) 782-1035
Senator William R. Haine (D) – (217) 782-5247
Senator Don Harmon (D) – (217) 782-8176
Senator Michael Noland (D) – (217) 782-7746
Senator Kwame Raoul (D) – (217) 782-5338
Senator Ira I. Silverstein (D) – (217) 782-5500
Senator Kirk W. Dillard (R) – (217) 782-8148
Senator Thomas Johnson (R) – (217) 782-8022
Senator Matt Murphy (R) – (217) 782-4471
Senator Ron Sandack (R) – (217) 782-8107

HB5544 (Sponsor Jil Tracy)  Hearing is February 29, 2012 before the Judiciary I – Civil Law Committee)

Amends provisions of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act concerning fees and costs for representation of a child. Provides that: an appointed attorney, guardian ad litem, or child representative’s failure to submit a detailed invoice for each 90-day period precludes the collection of costs, fees, and disbursements for services rendered in that period; an appointed attorney, guardian ad litem, or child representative may not bill the parties any fees for the preparation and presentation of an invoice; the court may not award lump sum fees to an appointed attorney, guardian ad litem, or child representative; the court may not authorize payment of bills that are not properly itemized; compensation for an appointed attorney, guardian ad litem, or child representative may be paid at a reasonable rate not to exceed $150 per hour; and that this rate shall be adjusted each year in accordance with the consumer price index. Deletes language providing that: the court may not order payment by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services if the Department is providing child support enforcement services under the Illinois Public Aid Code; and fees and costs payable to an appointed attorney, guardian ad litem, or child representative are by implication deemed to be in the nature of support of the child and are within the exceptions to discharge in bankruptcy unless the court orders otherwise. Makes other changes.

Sets fee caps at $150/hr ($312,000/yr) for court appointed attorneys – that is a lot of money for someone who is forced upon you.  Also, makes them submit their invoices or lose the fees.  Imagine if your auto mechanic refused to give you an invoice stating what he did. Or even tell you what he did.  And when he is done, your car is in even worse condition.  The fee cap is based on the formula for what we paid for attorneys in death penalty cases – you know, where they put people to death.  Kind of heavy stuff.  Why should these “cottage industry” folks make 2-3 times that?)

Judiciary I – Civil Law Committee:

Representative Elaine Nekritz (D) – (217) 558-1004
Representative John E. Bradley (D) – (217) 782-1051
Representative Jil Tracy (R) – (217) 782-8096
Representative Michael G. Connelly (R) – (217) 782-8028
Representative Dwight Kay (R) – (217) 782-8018
Representative Lou Lang (D) – (217) 782-1252
Representative Sidney H. Mathias (R) – (217) 782-1664
Representative André M. Thapedi (D) – (217) 782-1702
Representative Arthur Turner (D) – (217) 782-8116
Representative Ann Williams (D) – (217) 782-2458
Representative Michael J. Zalewski (D) – (217) 782-5280

HB4460 & HB4461 (Sponsor Anthony DeLuca)  Hearing is March 1, 2012 before the Judiciary II – Criminal Law Committee)

HB4460:  Amends the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 and the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986. Provides that upon petition, the court shall order that a person against whom an emergency order of protection was issued shall have all records related to the emergency order expunged (unless the person violated the order) from the court’s records and from the Department of the State Police’s Law Enforcement Agencies Data System if: (1) the person who sought the emergency order fails to seek a plenary order of protection before the emergency order expires; (2) there is an agreed dismissal; or (3) the court denies the issuance of a plenary order of protection following the emergency order. Provides that the clerk shall immediately file the expungement order and all records to be expunged shall be expunged no later than 3 business days after the order. Effective June 1, 2012.

HB4461:  Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Creates the offense of making a false statement to obtain an order of protection or civil no contact order. Provides that a person commits the offense when he or she knowingly makes or causes to be made any false statement intending the statement to be relied upon in issuing or enforcing an order of protection or civil no contact order. Provides that a violation is a Class 3 felony. Amends the Civil No Contact Order Act and the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986. Provides that whenever any person is found guilty of making a false statement to obtain an order of protection or civil no contact order and the issuing court materially relied on the false statement when it issued the order, then the issuing court shall vacate that order. Provides that in such case, all records relating to the petition filed under the respective Act shall be expunged. Provides that if the statement was not material to the issuance of the order, then the court shall modify the order to the extent justice requires.

Let’s end the OP and false allegation games.  OPs are important and should be for those who need them.  Right now they are a “strategic” tool to win.  Because of that, many cops do not take OPs serious because they know it is part of a game in divorce/custody.

Judiciary II – Criminal Law Committee:
-
Representative Constance A. Howard (D) – (217) 782-6476
Representative Emily McAsey (D) – (217) 782-4179
Representative Dennis M. Reboletti (R) – (217) 782-4014
Representative Dena M. Carli (D) – (217) 782-7752
Representative William Cunningham (D) – (217) 782-8200
Representative Esther Golar (D) – (217) 782-5971
Representative David Reis (R) – (217) 782-2087
Representative Jim Sacia (R) – (217) 782-8186

We get asked a lot about what’s happening in the realm of child support. As many may know, each State is required to analyze their guidelines every four years. Illinois is due to analyze theirs. Below is the notes from a recent child support advisory committee meeting hosted by HFS and headed by Julie Hamos and Pam Lowery. Below is a list of recommendations their committee came out with recently and is the foundation of their recommendations for the upcoming legislation.

– Original Notes Follow –

Illinois Quadrennial Review of Child Support Guidelines : 2010

In attendance:
CSAC Members and Special Appointees: Margaret Bennett, Erin Bognar, Joan Colen, Susan Kamman, Frank Kopecky, Representative Sidney Mathias, Michael Moore, Judge Jorge Ortiz, Diane Potts, Malcolm Rich, Ada Skyles, Margaret Stapleton, Jerome Stermer, Suzanne Strassberger, Zee Williams and Richard Zuckerman
HFS: Director Julie Hamos, John Allen, Richard Saavedra, Pamela Lowry, Mary Bartolomucci, Barb McDermott, Cynthia Moreno, Yvette Perez‐Trevino, and Norris Stevenson
Presenter: Dr. Jane Venohr

The Illinois Child Support Advisory Committee was convened at 10:10 am on December 8, 2010 to perform the quadrennial review of child support guidelines. HFS Director Julie Hamos welcomed the Committee. One public comment was heard and one comment was received via email. At 10:20, Chair Suzanne Strassberger welcomed the Committee and introduced Dr. Jane Venohr. Between 10:25 and 10:30, Chair Strassberger led the Committee in a review of the published agenda. At 10:30 Dr. Venohr began her presentation.

At 1:30 the Committee voted to recommend that Illinois move forward in replacing the percentage of obligor income methodology with income shares, with 9 voting yes, 3 no, and 1 abstaining. The Committee’s recommendation is that additional work be done, with a goal of drafting legislation for the Spring 2012 legislative session.

Following the vote, the Committee continued to discuss various specific guidelines topics. The Committee recommends:
• Further research be conducted as to the imputation of income for custodial parents.
• Child care expenses should be treated as “below the line” (not included in the table of expenditures). Treatment of child care expenses should be pro‐rated and included in orders as an individual line item. Illinois should look to other states’ guidelines to define qualified child care costs. Illinois should not pursue reimbursement of subsidized child care expenses. Child care expenses should be annualized. Additional research should be conducted as to the effect of child care expenses paid directly to the care provider by a child support obligor. Additional research should be conducted as to child care tax deductions and flex spending implications. Additional research should be conducted as to actual cost vs. market rate.
• Health insurance premiums should be treated as marginal cost (the cost attributable to the child’s coverage only, rather than the full premium costs). Illinois judges should be given the authority to order the custodial parent to apply for All Kids. Additional research needs to be conducted as to the “obligor” and “parties” language in ILCS 505.2
• A change in guidelines should not in and of itself constitute a substantial change in circumstances for modification purposes.
• Additional research should be conducted regarding the selection of an expenditure table. The two schedules that should be researched for selection are the most recent Betson/Rothbarth table and the most recent USDA table. Committee members favor a gross vs. net model, but understand that schedule selection may affect that preference.
• Additional research regarding deviation factors for the legislative proposal should be undertaken.
• The income shares model should include a presumption that the guidelines schedule (table of expenditures) will apply up to $480,000 combined annual gross income. The Committee recommends that child support terms for families with incomes beyond $480,000 combined annual gross income be at the discretion of the Court, but that the guidelines amount at the highest income level included in the table be considered the floor.
• The income shares model should include a self‐support reserve for low‐income obligors.
• The income shares model should include a shared parenting provision, the provision should be quantitative, and the threshold for the parenting time adjustment should be set at 40% or 145 nights. The Committee recommends that adjustments for split custody be a specific deviation factor.
• Additional research and discussions should be held regarding medical support provisions in a new income shares model, to address comprehensiveness, accessibility, and reasonableness of cost of available health insurance. Ordinary medical expenses of $250 per child should be explicitly included in the schedule of expenditures and should not otherwise be addressed in orders for support. Treatment of extraordinary expenses should be pro‐rated within the order and reduced to a judgment if unpaid.
• Additional research and discussions should be held as to treatment of life insurance, after school expenses, and expenses for children with disabilities.

The Committee requests that the Director appoint one or more working groups to undertake additional research and discussion and begin drafting a legislative proposal after 1/1/2011, in conjunction with appointment of the 2011 CSAC. The Committee requests that special members who attended the Guidelines review sessions be appointed as members for 2011.

The Committee also wishes to note that these recommendations are the result of many months of meetings, discussions, and collaborative work with other groups. The Committee came to general consensus, but individual members may have concerns about the overall recommended change and/or the sub‐recommendations. Individual members and/or the organizations they represent may have further comment on any introduced legislation, and those comments may or may not be consistent with the recommendations of the CSAC as a whole.

The new version of VAWA is under discussion at the Federal Level, SAVE, a not for profit group out of Maryland is working to ensure that future domestic violence legislation has accountability, is reviewed for effectiveness, and is unbiased in how it protects victims. Please consider assisting SAVE in their efforts to revamp our current domestic violence legislation.

– Original Message Follows –

Tomorrow, Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee will be meeting to discuss Sen. Leahy’s version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. Leahy’s VAWA bill contains many, many controversial provisions, and does nothing to assure real victims, and ALL victims – are helped.

At the meeting Sen. Charles Grassley will be proposing an amendment to bring the domestic violence industry to heel. The DV industry is certain to oppose these accountability measures. So please contact these members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and tell them that abuse victims are demanding that VAWA be made accountable to meet their needs.

Tell them to support Sen. Grassley’s efforts to bring accountability to the Violence Against Women Act.

• Chuck Grassley: (202) 224-3744
• Orrin G. Hatch: (202) 224-5251
• Jon Kyl: (202) 224-4521
• Jeff Sessions: (202) 224-4124
• Lindsey Graham: (202) 224-5972
• John Cornyn: (202) 224-2934
• Michael S. Lee: (202) 224-5444
• Tom Coburn: (202) 224-5754

Sincerely,

Teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments