Custody

For many parents, the most pressing fear of child custody negotiations is the concern that the other parent will try to keep their children from them. This fear can actually prevent the parents from remaining focused on what is best for the children as they try to battle each other.

Buffalo Grove Custody Establishment Or Modification Lawyer

At Buffalo Grove Law Offices, we are committed to keeping the process directed at an outcome that is in the best interest of the children. We will reach a resolution as efficiently and inexpensively as possible, minimizing the drain on the family.

Mandatory Mediation Is The First Step

Unless both parents come to agreement regarding custody, the issue of custody must go through mediation before you can go to court on the issue of custody. The only exception to that is when a temporary custody decision must be made. This will allow both parents to come together in a facilitated discussion, both helping to decide how the children will be looked after and provided for following the divorce or in other cases not involving divorcing couples.

We will explain this process to you, providing the information and understanding that you need to approach mediation in a productive and informed manner. The custody process will include evaluations and interviews.

Most cases are settled before court, but if needed, we are prepared to represent your interests before the family law judge. The outcome of this decision and the amount of time you are granted with your children is vitally important, and we are committed to fighting for you and for the best interests of your children.

We will also help to negotiate joint custody and visitation agreements that best serve your family and allow adequate parenting time with both the mother and father, regardless of who was granted custodial or non-custodial rights.

Modification Of Custody Orders

No motion to modify a custody judgment may be made earlier than two years after its date, unless the court permits an earlier date because there is reason to believe the child’s present environment may endanger seriously his or her physical, mental, moral, or emotional health. However, after two years, the standard for the court to use is ‘the best interest of the child. This standard is the one that is also used in making the original custody order.

FORMER BOYFRIEND HAD NO STANDING TO BRING CLAIM FOR CUSTODY

The former boyfriend did not have statutory standing to bring a claim for custody of a minor adopted from Slovakia by his former girlfriend. The parties had never married, and they had taken no steps for the adoption to be recognized in Illinois. The father had not adopted the child, who remained in the custody of the adoptive mother. Illinois does not recognize the common-law standing of a nonparent to bring a petition for custody of a minor. In re Parentage of Scarlett Z.D., 2012 Il App (2d) 120266 (Aug 30, 2012) DuPage Co.

Contact An Arlington Heights Child Custody Lawyer

To arrange an initial consultation to discuss your situation and the options available to you, please contact our Illinois law firm today at (847) 772-8579.

THE COURT MAY NOT SEE IT YOUR WAY

By Buffalo Grove Law Offices | July 21, 2021 | Comments Off on THE COURT MAY NOT SEE IT YOUR WAY

The court granted the emergency motion of the mother. Father’s parenting time was restricted due to his conduct during his parenting time with his 2 minor children. Father used profanity. He spoke poorly of their mother. He threatened dangerous punishment. He showed an inability to control his anger. The trial court found that the father’s…

Read More

IF YOU DON’T AGREE, SAY SO LOUD ENOUGH

By Buffalo Grove Law Offices | July 21, 2021 | Comments Off on IF YOU DON’T AGREE, SAY SO LOUD ENOUGH

The wife filed for divorce. They had an oral settlement agreement. The Judge granted the divorce. Wife appealed. The wife alleged that she was pushed into settlement by her attorney. She alleged that she had no choice. The Appellate Court said that was insufficient to invalidate the settlement agreement. A property settlement should not be…

Read More

PENALTIES AGAINST EMPLOYER FOR NOT WITHHOLDING

By Buffalo Grove Law Offices | July 21, 2021 | Comments Off on PENALTIES AGAINST EMPLOYER FOR NOT WITHHOLDING

The ex-wife filed a complaint against her ex-husband’s employer. She alleged that it knowingly failed to withhold money owed for child support and maintenance payments from his wages on 15 pay periods. The trial court assessed statutory penalties against the employer, in the amount of $66,700. Employer appeals. Employer argues that no penalties should have…

Read More

CAN YOU USE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED RECORDINGS IN COURT?

By Buffalo Grove Law Offices | July 21, 2021 | Comments Off on CAN YOU USE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED RECORDINGS IN COURT?

Parties are divorced. A Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) had been appointed to assist the court as to the best interest of the children. The GAL had listened to illegally taped recordings of telephone conversations between the husband and the children. Their wife had made those recordings. The GAL had requested permission to listen to the…

Read More

WHEN IS A JOB CHANGE NOT DONE IN GOOD FAITH?

By Buffalo Grove Law Offices | July 21, 2021 | Comments Off on WHEN IS A JOB CHANGE NOT DONE IN GOOD FAITH?

Was the husband’s voluntary termination of employment from Touche Ross done in good faith? The test for good faith is: “whether the change in status was prompted by a desire to evade financial responsibility for supporting the children or to otherwise jeopardize their interests.” The facts concerning the husband’s voluntary termination of employment from Touche…

Read More

MISUSE OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION IN A DIVORCE CASE

By Buffalo Grove Law Offices | July 21, 2021 | Comments Off on MISUSE OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION IN A DIVORCE CASE

The divorce had already taken place. The wife obtained a two-year order of protection. It restrained the husband from abusing, harassing, intimidating, or interfering with the personal liberty of the parties’ daughter. Husband appealed. He contended that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in granting the order of protection because the evidence did not…

Read More