Chicago Child Visitation LawyerRepresenting Mothers & Fathers with Child Visitation Matters |
D.M. Siegel, Attorney 19 S. LaSalle Street Suite 707 Chicago, IL 60603 773-276-6969 |
| Home | About | Recent Cases | Blog | Contact | |
Visitation Decisions Properly Allowed & Properly DeniedVisitation schedule was unjust due to the unusual circumstances involved; in a two month period, father was home only 20 days, but during those 20 days, he was available the entire day, therefore, child’s father had daytime visitation in place of baby-sitter during the weeks he was home. (In re Dobey) The trial court did not err in a child custody proceeding where the evidence was held sufficient to sustain a judge’s order that expanded the mother’s visitation rights but left custody with the father. (Patton v. Armstrong) Where there was evidence that considerable difficulty arose under the “reasonable” visitation provisions of the original decree, the court did not abuse his discretion in spelling out specific provisions for visitation in the modified decree. (Lewis v. Lewis) The trial court reasonably concluded that the plaintiff’s interest in caring for the children had deteriorated during the last two years and that their future care by the plaintiff would be neglected insofar as an estimate of the future might be projected from the evidence as to plaintiff’s manner of living. (Froman v. Froman) Properly Denied Petitioner/prisoner who presented no evidence of a strong relationship with his child plus the fact that child would have to enter the prison grounds, be searched by guards and observe the general prison environment to see his father was not in the child’s best interests and thus, petitioner’s modification of visitation rights was denied. (Woods v. Woods) Evidence was held insufficient to sustain a motion of change of visitation rights because of the mother’s alleged associations and the child’s falling grades. (Keefer v. Keefer) The court erred in its order modifying the decree of divorce which in effect provided that the defendant father need pay no more for the support of the minor children except when he requested that they be brought to his home and then he was required to pay plaintiff $30.00 on each and every occasion, where he was financially able to support the children. (Kemp v. Kemp) See Also:Best Interests of the Child in Visitation Cases The Standard Visitation Schedule
|
| Home | About | Recent Cases | Blog | News | Links | Contact | |
|
D.M. Siegel, Attorney 19 S. LaSalle Street Suite 707 Chicago, IL 60603 773-276-6969 |