Contempt of court

[mistoffolees]

I did and it is right on the second sentence of the thread. The judge ordered the supervised visits and I think between that and my attorney wording the order, something was missed. I agree my attorney may have left a bunch of holes in wording that order.

Exact wording, please. NOT your interpretation.

 

[stealth2]

I did and it is right on the second sentence of the thread.

No, you did not.

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IL

X-wife is currently on supervised visits. The order states that at her 8-5 visit, another adult 21 and older MUST BE PRESENT.

That is what you think it says - that is NOT how the order reads. Now - please type, word for word, exactly what your order states.

 

[microbes]

No, you did not.



That is what you think it says - that is NOT how the order reads. Now - please type, word for word, exactly what your order states.

That is exactly how it was written up by my attorney on the order and not my interpretation. When I got a copy of it, I felt that he may have left a lot of holes open but my attorney unfortunately is not the greatest.

 

[stealth2]

That is exactly how it was written up by my attorney on the order and not my interpretation. When I got a copy of it, I felt that he may have left a lot of holes open but my attorney unfortunately is not the greatest.

So your order states:

"at her 8-5 visit, another adult 21 and older MUST BE PRESENT"?

Right. I don't believe you. Sorry! Maybe someone else will be able to help you.

 

[microbes]

So your order states:

"at her 8-5 visit, another adult 21 and older MUST BE PRESENT"?

Right. I don't believe you. Sorry! Maybe someone else will be able to help you.

Look I have no reason to lie to you. I may not have a JD but I'm not illiterate and I know how to read a simple sentence on a piece of document.

 

[acmb05]

Ok, then the courts decided that mom's visitation should be supervised because she is a potential risk to herself and the children. However, the courts did not feel that the risks were severe enough to require professional supervision or a specific supervisor, only that she needed to have another adult present. That is actually pretty "supervision lite".

Between this thread, and your other thread, you are not at all clear on what your goal is.

What your goal SHOULD be, is to ensure that the children can have an ongoing relationship with their mother in a way that is safe for the children and ensures that the children are not at risk.

Therefore yes, you should be filing for contempt, (and you shouldn't be so worried about what type of contempt) but more importantly you should also be filing to modify the orders so that mom is unable to play the games she has been playing with the supervision.

You should be filing to modify the orders so that either a specific supervisor is named who will take their duties seriously, or you should be filing to for professional supervision to be ordered. Are there any members of mom's family who agree that she is a risk and would be willing to be named supervisors and would take it seriously?

However, again, the kind of supervision ordered was about the lightest form of supervision that I have ever observed. Therefore there is a slight risk that a court could determine that mom no longer needed supervision.

Which makes no difference because when she did it she was under an order. That's like saying if someone got 2 years on a attempted murder charge and broke out of jail the courts saying well he got a light sentence so we feel he no longer needs to be incarcerated so we are not going to prosecute him for breaking out.

And all of this...acmb05 is the reason why my question was relevant.

All you could have given the same exact advice if the mother was doing anything else that the court thought was enough to order supervised visits. I still say it did not matter why it was ordered or how light it is. What matters is it was ordered to be supervised and the mother disobeyed that order.

In order to answer the question asked the reason why was not needed.

OP asked if it fell under Indirect Criminal contempt or under indirect civil contempt. From what he posted on why he filed it would be civil contempt.

 

[CJane]

What matters is it was ordered to be supervised and the mother disobeyed that order.

In order to answer the question asked the reason why was not needed.

OP asked if it fell under Indirect Criminal contempt or under indirect civil contempt. From what he posted on why he filed it would be civil contempt.

I think OP might have a very difficult time proving that there was never another adult present. Especially when his "proof" is 1) possibly illegally obtained (especially if there's audio on the video recording) and 2) going to be difficult to get admitted into evidence with a "not very good" attorney.

AND contempt isn't just violating the order. It's willfully and maliciously violating the order.

How to prove that w/out the recording(s)?

 

[acmb05]

I think OP might have a very difficult time proving that there was never another adult present. Especially when his "proof" is 1) possibly illegally obtained (especially if there's audio on the video recording) and 2) going to be difficult to get admitted into evidence with a "not very good" attorney.

AND contempt isn't just violating the order. It's willfully and maliciously violating the order.

How to prove that w/out the recording(s)?

I agree it is not going to be easy but that was not the question. If he can prove the person only came with the mother for the pickups and then the mother was left alone with the child it would be willfull. It would be good if he could get the person that came with her to testify but I don't see that happening.

 

[CJane]

I agree it is not going to be easy but that was not the question. If he can prove the person only came with the mother for the pickups and then the mother was left alone with the child it would be willfull. It would be good if he could get the person that came with her to testify but I don't see that happening.

Right, the question is whether it's civil or criminal contempt.

I think he's going to have a really difficult time proving that it's EITHER.

That's what I'm saying.