BG Legal (Illinois) - Crazy ex

[Ksandra]

A lawyer should be consulted before any such action is taken, period.

holy crap, parents take their kids out of a stressful situation all the time. This is not a crime. That law is written weird, but she'd only be breaking the law if she took them away without just reason, and hid them for like 5 years without notifying the police about the situation. (court visitation is a different can of worms, but they don't have that atm)

Taking the kids out and reporting that she's scared to death is not going to get her into trouble. Don't give bad advice that could end up hurting these kids which are way more important than the OPs fuckwit sister and her douchebag mate.

[archibaldcrane]

http://forum.freeadvice.com/child-cu...not-29061.html

First, without a standing court ordered and recorded custody decision, there is no such thing as parental kidnapping. Parents are seen as having equal "rights" to the child and either can go where they want, when they want with that child at any time. If, however, one parent removes the child to a second or unknown location, the purpose of which is to deny the custody or visitation of the other parent, even without a standing custody decision, it is considered parental kidnapping. In such situations, while warrants for the arrest of the absconding parent and the return of the child are being issued, the left behind parent will also be granted emergency custody.

The purpose of leaving with the kids isn't to deny the custody or visitation of the other parent - the point of leaving is to keep the parent from harming her. The fact that he won't have visitation of his children is a side-effect, not the intent.

[Mojo]

It takes the better part of a Monday morning to find a lawyer to get real legal advice from on something like this. Meanwhile, you're advising someone to conduct themselves in an overwhelmingly irresponsible and likely illegal fashion, suggesting actions which have an undeniable potential to complicate and even worsen their situation immensely.

[archibaldcrane]

It's irresponsible to remain in a situation where physical harm is likely.

[Kohan]

It takes the better part of a Monday morning to find a lawyer to get real legal advice from on something like this. Meanwhile, you're advising someone to conduct themselves in an overwhelmingly irresponsible and likely illegal fashion, suggesting actions which have an undeniable potential to complicate and even worsen their situation immensely.

No, you're just a fucking idiot regarding the situation, and you're claiming that the people with valid advice are wrong. You obviously Googled the laws regarding kidnapping, and you didn't even read them. Either that, or you're not equipped to understand them.

She can legally terminate her lease under her circumstances. She has a police record in her favor making it clear that this person has a history of abuse. There is no pending custody ruling. At absolute worst, if they were even going to enter a court to determine custody later on, and ignoring the fact that she already has filed evidence in her favor, she would be ordered to give him her new address. They wouldn't fucking toss her in jail and throw away the key.

Finally, of course she can call a lawyer—from a safe place. Even if there were legitimate reasons to put out a warrant for her arrest (which there will not be), this would not happen immediately. There is no reason for her to stay in the apartment and do this.

I've never said she shouldn't call a lawyer. I've said she should get to a safe place ASAP, where he won't find her, and work it out from there.

Suggesting anything else is to be completely disregarding the value of human life and, in short, to be a fucking moron.

[Kellanved]

He says he is legally permitted to throw me out too. Is there anything that can be done to keep him out? Can he legally throw me out when my sisters name is on the lease as well and she does not want me removed? Can she file a restraining order again without some type of threatening action on his part?

Since your questions were not actually answered.

(1) Generally, co-tenants have equal right to possess and use the entire property, including the right to have guests.

(2) The applicable Illinois Statutes are below, redacted to relevant parts:

§ 750 ILCS 60/214. Order of protection; remedies

Sec. 214. Order of protection; remedies. (a) Issuance of order. If the court finds that petitioner has been abused by a family or household member or that petitioner is a high-risk adult who has been abused, neglected, or exploited, as defined in this Act, an order of protection prohibiting the abuse, neglect, or exploitation shall issue; provided that petitioner must also satisfy the requirements of one of the following Sections, as appropriate: Section 217 [750 ILCS 60/217] on emergency orders, Section 218 [750 ILCS 60/218] on interim orders, or Section 219 [750 ILCS 60/219] on plenary orders. Petitioner shall not be denied an order of protection because petitioner or respondent is a minor. The court, when determining whether or not to issue an order of protection, shall not require physical manifestations of abuse on the person of the victim. Modification and extension of prior orders of protection shall be in accordance with this Act.

(b) Remedies and standards. The remedies to be included in an order of protection shall be determined in accordance with this Section and one of the following Sections, as appropriate: Section 217 [750 ILCS 60/217] on emergency orders…
(3) Stay away order and additional prohibitions. Order respondent to stay away from petitioner or any other person protected by the order of protection, or prohibit respondent from entering or remaining present at petitioner's school, place of employment, or other specified places at times when petitioner is present, or both, if reasonable, given the balance of hardships. Hardships need not be balanced for the court to enter a stay away order or prohibit entry if respondent has no right to enter the premises.

*(A) If an order of protection grants petitioner exclusive possession of the residence, or prohibits respondent from entering the residence, or orders respondent to stay away from petitioner or other protected persons, then the court may allow respondent access to the residence to remove items of clothing and personal adornment used exclusively by respondent, medications, and other items as the court directs. The right to access shall be exercised on only one occasion as the court directs and in the presence of an agreed-upon adult third party or law enforcement officer.
§ 750 ILCS 60/217. Emergency order of protection
Sec. 217. Emergency order of protection. (a) Prerequisites. An emergency order of protection shall issue if petitioner satisfies the requirements of this subsection for one or more of the requested remedies. For each remedy requested, petitioner shall establish that:

(1) The court has jurisdiction under Section 208 [750 ILCS 60/208];

(2) The requirements of Section 214 [750 ILCS 60/214] are satisfied; and
(3) There is good cause to grant the remedy, regardless of prior service of process or of notice upon the respondent, because:
(i) For the remedies of "prohibition of abuse" described in Section 214(b)(1) [750 ILCS 60/214], "stay away order and additional prohibitions" described in Section 214(b)(3) [750 ILCS 60/214], … the harm which that remedy is intended to prevent would be likely to occur if the respondent were given any prior notice, or greater notice than was actually given, of the petitioner's efforts to obtain judicial relief;

§ 750 ILCS 60/220. Duration and extension of orders
Sec. 220. Duration and extension of orders. (a) Duration of emergency and interim orders. Unless re-opened or extended or voided by entry of an order of greater duration:

(1) Emergency orders issued under Section 217 [750 ILCS 60/217] shall be effective for not less than 14 nor more than 21 days;
(e) Extension of orders. Any emergency, interim or plenary order may be extended one or more times, as required, provided that the requirements of Section 217, 218 or 219 [750 ILCS 60/217, 750 ILCS 60/218 or 750 ILCS 60/219], as appropriate, are satisfied. If the motion for extension is uncontested and petitioner seeks no modification of the order, the order may be extended on the basis of petitioner's motion or affidavit stating that there has been no material change in relevant circumstances since entry of the order and stating the reason for the requested extension. An extension of a plenary order of protection may be granted, upon good cause shown, to remain in effect until the order of protection is vacated or modified. Extensions may be granted only in open court and not under the provisions of subsection (c) of Section 217 [750 ILCS 60/217], which applies only when the court is unavailable at the close of business or on a court holiday.

[Mojo]

It's irresponsible to remain in a situation where physical harm is likely.

At no point did I suggest she remain in a situation where physical harm is likely. Also, consider how this seemingly obsessive, desperate and clingy man will react to having his child abducted. Now try and find another realistic action on her part that would exacerbate the likelihood of a strangling occurring more than this.

@Kohan

Yes, I did Google them, but your BG Forum Guy interpretation of these laws are equally weighted. Legal advice on an internet forum is alright for simple things like a lease agreement, but in a serious situation like possible parental kidnapping, the only act you should be advising someone to do is to first consult with a lawyer.

[Kohan]

@Kohan

Yes, I did Google them, but your BG Forum Guy interpretation of these laws are equally weighted. Legal advice on an internet forum is alright for simple things like a lease agreement, but in a serious situation like possible parental kidnapping, the only act you should be advising someone to do is to first consult with a lawyer.

No, actually, we're not on equal grounds. I'm used to drafting legal documents, interpreting legalese, and communicating with lawyers. I also have a paid lawyer on hand for anything I need to talk to them about. On top of that, I have relatives involved in law. On top of that, I have personally been involved in abuse cases—on both sides. Am I a lawyer? No. Do I know more than you? Yes.

If you think that "possible parental kidnapping" is more severe than "possible murder," you are a fucking idiot. Preservation of life is more important.

If you want me to go into greater detail as to why she can legally do these things, I can. For one, if they were never married and he did not legally declare his paternity, she has all custodial rights according to Illinois law. This isn't open to interpretation, it's the fucking law. It isn't unique to Illinois, either. Secondly, kidnapping is only kidnapping if custodial rights are expected to be ruled upon, and the case is only considered to be very severe if someone leaves the state, in which case they'd be ordered back into the state by a court of law. She had an emergency restraining order? Yes, and she can file for another one and/or an extension, whichever the court sees fit to give. However, she does not have to stay in the apartment to do any of these things.

This is not "Forum Guy" conjecture. You're right, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not wrong, either. If she decides not to terminate her apartment lease with the three day notice permitted by Illinois law in her situation, she still does not have to physically be there while contacting a lawyer, getting another restraining order, and so on. Expecting her to merrily stay there for the better part of a Monday morning while she has some fucking tea and cookies and happily handles this shit is absolutely batshit retarded.

Lastly, as if it weren't emphasized enough earlier, time is of the essence in a case like this. The man has obviously tried to kill her already. And you want her to sit around and wait for some fucking legal advice? Sometimes, it's a lot better to risk breaking the law than it is to get yourself killed.

I can't believe anyone could be this unfathomably retarded.

EDIT: In fact, have you ever even talked to a lawyer about anything serious? Do you really think that someone who has never dealt with a lawyer before can ring one up, get their full attention, and get full-fledged legal advice from them absolutely free? Are you a Goddamn idiot? Are you really commenting on something that you don't even fucking understand and expecting to be taken seriously?

[archibaldcrane]

Kohan, while I agree with everything you're saying, one of the two children involved is his - read the OP again, they have two kids - one his, one not.

[Kohan]

Kohan, while I agree with everything you're saying, one of the two children involved is his - read the OP again, they have two kids - one his, one not.

I've known that the entire time. If they weren't married and he didn't legally establish his parentage, she can do whatever she wants without any legal repercussions.

[archibaldcrane]

Ah. That's pretty fucked up.

[Kohan]

In some cases, I'd agree, but at least it can work out in her favor in a case like this—if it applies.

EDIT: As for what would have been required to make this happen:

In Illinois, a man is a child's legal father only if one of the following is true:

* He was married to the child's mother when the child was born or when the child was conceived (or both)
* He married the mother after the child's birth and he is listed with his permission (as of August 9, 1996, his written permission is needed) on the child's birth certificate
* There is a court order or Department of Public Aid administrative order of paternity
* He and the mother have signed a "Voluntary Acknowledgement of Parentage" or "Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity" form

Note that the second possibility requires a post-birth marriage and being listed with permission—if they've never married, he never got a court order, and they never signed parentage forms, she can go to fucking Alaska and he can't do shit about it.

http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/inde...entID=5004#q=1

[Byrthnoth]

You should put your sister up for adoption and replace her. She comes with too much baggage in too many ways.

[Tagus]

He has not/will not come around when I am here, he told my sister when they were together that he is terrified of me.

Obviously not terrified enough. Your sister asking you to move in was a cry for help. Typically when an aggressor like this dude says something like, "I'm terrified of your brother", it's a manipulation. By giving you the imagined power over him of fear by throwing a statement out there, he defuses any potential aggression on your part that he might have to face by lowering the threat that he presents to you in your mind. I volunteered in a domestic violence shelter for two years in college when going for my psych degree, so I've seen alot of this crap... it's a fucked up situation and this isn't typically what I'd suggest, but if the law ain't helping, you need to get your ducks in a row and show this guy what fear really is. Or move her. She's not going to do it for herself if the choking didn't push her hard enough to do it.

[Mojo]

At no point did I ever advise remaining in the apartment (see: the very first post I made.) None of those claims you made validate the assertion you're making. However, even if your assertion is correct, you're still wrong. You're just some guy on the internet. You're not the person anybody should be consulting for serious legal matters. If you're somehow still left confused about what I'm asserting in regards to the specific fate of her child, it's pretty simple. Find a lawyer.

Also, since you're keen on providing your insight on their behavioral patterns, I'll give you mine. If he is crazy enough to kill her, there's a good chance he'll find out where she ends up living. Suddenly disappearing with an obsessive man's child is going to elevate his intensity. It's typical of the rash behavior that perpetuates such ridiculous relationships.

[Kohan]

At no point did I ever advise remaining in the apartment (see: the very first post I made.) None of those claims you made validate the assertion you're making. However, even if your assertion is correct, you're still wrong. You're just some guy on the internet. You're not the person anybody should be consulting for serious legal matters. If you're somehow still left confused about what I'm asserting in regards to the specific fate of her child, it's pretty simple. Find a lawyer.

After getting away from where they already are, they can do that. However, you're talking from a privileged, perfect world-type mindset. In other words, you are not grounded in reality. Am I just some person typing messages over the Internet? I am, and I am a person with personal experience in regards to abuse. You are not. I have provided legal proof of what I'm saying. You posted something from a message board elsewhere on the Internet. And you're arguing about credibility? If I'm no more credible than some random passerby on the street (which isn't the case), you're worse than a crack-addled hobo writhing around in the gutter.

Posting on the Internet—in other words, sharing knowledge with other humans via a viable communications medium—doesn't suddenly invalidate someone's experience and knowledge. If you think that way, you're even more of a fucking idiot than you've already demonstrated to everyone in this thread. You stuck to the kidnapping thing, which you're completely fucking wrong on, and it's one of the worst things you could have done. If you support them moving out, you don't fucking muddle it up with telling them to fear the law when you do not even know what you are fucking talking about.

You aren't just out of your league, you're potentially causing a lot more harm than good. You can say that I'm doing that all you want, but I'm not a know-nothing retard like you.

Also, since you're keen on providing your insight on their behavioral patterns, I'll give you mine. If he is crazy enough to kill her, there's a good chance he'll find out where she ends up living. Suddenly disappearing with an obsessive man's child is going to elevate his intensity. It's typical of the rash behavior that perpetuates such ridiculous relationships.

It's sweet that you like to watch crime dramas on television and read the occasional and uncommon story of this happening in reality, but if someone flees a white trash piece of shit who doesn't know anything about the law (which will be revealed to be the case if they're not the legally registered father of the child, to note), they definitely aren't going to know how to track someone down. The United States is a really fucking big place on its own, but every major metropolis houses millions of people. If someone wants to disappear, and the only person potentially tracking them down is the average Joe, they're not going to pull some fucking Sherlock Holmes shit and magically find them.

Seriously, you seem to be vehemently determined to prove yourself stupider and stupider. You don't know shit about the laws you've interjected on, you don't know anything about actually getting a lawyer and getting advice from them, and you don't understand why going on about this shit is problematic. I advise you find something better to do with your time than being a useless shit.

[shepardG]

Do mojo and kohan have some crazy history I am unaware of?

[Kohan]

Do mojo and kohan have some crazy history I am unaware of?

No. I'm always furiously argumentative when it comes to abuse cases. Abuse and I go back a long ways, unfortunately.

I'll stop giving a shit about him in a day. I mostly have already. I'm fucking hungry.

Well, here's to hoping that the OP isn't dead.

[Cream Soda]

In Illinois, a man is a child's legal father only if one of the following is true:

* He was married to the child's mother when the child was born or when the child was conceived (or both)
* He married the mother after the child's birth and he is listed with his permission (as of August 9, 1996, his written permission is needed) on the child's birth certificate
* There is a court order or Department of Public Aid administrative order of paternity
* He and the mother have signed a "Voluntary Acknowledgement of Parentage" or "Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity" form

Does that work both ways(child support, etc.), or only in terms of him having rights

[Kellanved]

Does that work both ways(child support, etc.), or only in terms of him having rights

I considered adding this in my initial post to potentially save them some effort. Relevant part of the same statute:

(5) Never married parties. No rights or responsibilities for a minor child born outside of marriage attach to a putative father until a father and child relationship has been established under the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984 [750 ILCS 45/1 et seq.], the Illinois Public Aid Code [305 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq.], Section 12 of the Vital Records Act [410 ILCS 535/12], the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 [705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq.], the Probate Act of 1985 [755 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq.], the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act [former 750 ILCS 20/1 et seq.], the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act [750 ILCS 22/101 et seq., repealed], the Expedited Child Support Act of 1990 [750 ILCS 25/1 et seq.], any judicial, administrative, or other act of another state or territory, any other Illinois statute, or by any foreign nation establishing the father and child relationship, any other proceeding substantially in conformity with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-193) [8 U.S.C. § 1621 et seq.], or where both parties appeared in open court or at an administrative hearing acknowledging under oath or admitting by affirmation the existence of a father and child relationship. Absent such an adjudication, finding, or acknowledgement, no putative father shall be granted temporary custody of the minor child, visitation with the minor child, or physical care and possession of the minor child, nor shall an order of payment for support of the minor child be entered.