___Third Party
A private cause of action against a psychiatrist, a third party to a custody proceeding, was implied from subsection (a) of this section where the psychiatrist had no authority to subject a young child to psychotherapy twice a month for a period of one year, without the lawful consent of either the child’s father, as child’s custodial parent, or the court having authority under this subsection. Dymek v. Nyqueist.
Purpose
Subsection (a) of this section was intended to help reconcile the conflicting interests of estranged parents. In re Tisckos.
Religious Services
In dissolution proceedings, the circuit court is not bound by a premarital agreement purporting to fix the religion in which the parties’ children will be raised. In re Bennett.
A premarital agreement relating to the religious upbringing of the children was not binding on the court in dissolution proceedings. In re Nuechterlien.
The court’s order directing a father as non-custodial parent to take his daughter to the Roman Catholic Church and not to his Baptist church being in the nature of an accommodation to be made on behalf of the child by the non-custodial parent, and involving the non-custodial parent to a degree when the child’s obligation occurs during a period of visitation, was governed by this section and was not a restriction governed by 750 ILCS 5/607. In re Tisckos.
An order directing that a child be enrolled in the public school system was not erroneous, where the child was born into the Jewish faith, but following the parents divorce, the child was enrolled in a Lutheran day school. Stern v. Stern.
Restrict Defined
The word “restrict”, given its ordinary and everyday meaning, indicates action to limit, restrain, or confine within bounds. In re Tisckos.
Restrictions
___Examples
“Restrictions” have been found to
In General
This section speaks in terms of a single custodian with substantial authority. In re: Tisckos.
Applicability
Only if the provisions of the court’s order in question are deemed a “restriction” of the non-custodial parent’s visitation rights does the endangerment standard come into play. In re Tisckos.
Authority of Custodian
___Trust Proceeds
Proceeds of a life insurance policy for the benefit of the children of decedent’s first marriage could be placed in a trust for the children’s benefit; such proceeds need not be directly paid to the children or their guardian. Downey v. Downey.
Consent for Medical Procedure
___Available Parent
While the power to consent to surgical procedures on a child ordinarily rests exclusively with the custodial parent, when that parent is not available, the parent who has actual custody and is available may consent to the surgery. Taylor v. R.D. Morgan & Assoc.
___Best Interests of Child
A parent or guardian may give consent on behalf of a minor daughter or son for the child to donate bone marrow to a sibling, only when to do so would be in the minor’s best interest. Curran v. Bosze.
___Burden of Proof
The non-custodial parent has the burden of persuading the court that the withholding of consent by custodial parent to medical procedure is clearly contrary to the best interests of the child. Curran v. Bosze.
___Not Wilful
Petitioner committed visitation abuse by the threatening to withhold visitation unless respondent signed the parental declaration, however, petitioners actions stemmed from her concern about how respondent was treating the children, rather than from an intent to interfere with his rights and there was no evidence in the record that she actually denied respondent an opportunity to visit the children based upon his failure to sign the document; therefore, petitioner’s conduct did not amount to a willful and unjustifiable denial of respondent’s visitation rights. In re Aleshire.
The language “after hearing all of the evidence” means that the trial court may order mediation only after assessing whether mediation would be useful in resolving a specific dispute before the court, therefore, this section does not authorize trial courts to order mediation of prospective visitation disputes. In re Aleshire.
The trial court abused its discretion and denied petitioner her due process rights by denying petitioner the opportunity to present evidence in her own behalf before holding her in contempt for visitation abuse. Pryweller v. Pryweller.
In a proceeding for civil contempt for failure to produce children for therapy and visitation, it was necessary to show that petitioner’s alleged contemptuous conduct was willful. Pryweller v. Pryweller.
An order finding the husband guilty of contempt of court for withholding custody of children awarded to the wife by divorce decree was simply an interlocutory order, made by the court in the process of a suit at law, and was in no sense definite. Flaningam v. Flaningam.
