• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

And something new for Illinois...

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Proserpina

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Uh.. Illinois?

http://www.birtlaw.com/blog/new-illinois-family-law-effects-joint-custody-parenting (synopsis)

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2992&GAID=12&GA=98&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=74842&SessionID=85 (actual verbiage)
 


LdiJ

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Uh.. Illinois?

http://www.birtlaw.com/blog/new-illinois-family-law-effects-joint-custody-parenting (synopsis)

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2992&GAID=12&GA=98&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=74842&SessionID=85 (actual verbiage)
Wow...they have made ROFR a statutory requirement.
 

TheGeekess

Keeper of the Kraken
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=098-0462

Oh, yeah. This is going to end well. :cool:
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
Wow...they have made ROFR a statutory requirement.
Yeah.

Not loving that idea.

"Hey, I've got this great idea to give stressed out parents another thing to fight about!"

"Duuuuuuuuuude...you're bogarting the Funyuns"

"Oh right sorry...<inhales> so like we'll just get that one passed this August, k?"

"Yeah man, whatevs"

"
 

CJane

Senior Member
With very few, and very specific exceptions, I really dislike ROFR. I think it CREATES more conflict than it solves, and it is disruptive to the consistency that I believe children need. To make it statutory make my skin crawl.
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
With very few, and very specific exceptions, I really dislike ROFR. I think it CREATES more conflict than it solves, and it is disruptive to the consistency that I believe children need. To make it statutory make my skin crawl.

I completely agree and letting the court dictate, when no agreement can be made, just muddies the issue.
 

single317dad

Senior Member
Indiana has ROFR built into the parenting time guidelines. I personally am in favor of it.

3. Opportunity for Additional Parenting Time. When it becomes necessary that a child be cared for by a person other than a parent or a responsible household family member, the parent needing the child care shall first offer the other parent the opportunity for additional parenting time, if providing the child care by the other parent is practical considering the time available and the distance between residences. The other parent is under no obligation to provide the child care. If the other parent elects to provide this care, it shall be done at no cost and without affecting child support. The parent exercising additional parenting time shall provide the necessary transportation unless the parties otherwise agree.

Commentary

The rule providing for opportunities for additional parenting time promotes the concept that a child receives greater benefit from being with a parent rather than a child care provider who is not a household family member. The household family member is defined as an adult person residing in the household, who is related to the child by blood, marriage or adoption. The rule is also intended to be practical. When a parent's work schedule or other regular activities require hiring or arranging for a child care provider who is not a household family member, the other parent should be given the opportunity to provide the care. Distance, transportation or time may make the rule impractical. The period of absence which triggers the exchange will vary depending upon the circumstances of the parties. Parents should agree on the amount of child care time and the circumstances that require the offer be made. It is presumed that this rule applies in all cases which the guidelines cover; however, the parties or a trial court may, within discretion, determine that a deviation is necessary or appropriate. Any such deviation must be accompanied by a written explanation. See Shelton v. Shelton, 840 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2006)

This section is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the “right of first refusal.” It is more accurate to refer to this section as an opportunity to exercise additional parenting time.
 

TheGeekess

Keeper of the Kraken
Indiana has ROFR built into the parenting time guidelines. I personally am in favor of it.

3. Opportunity for Additional Parenting Time. When it becomes necessary that a child be cared for by a person other than a parent or a responsible household family member, the parent needing the child care shall first offer the other parent the opportunity for additional parenting time, if providing the child care by the other parent is practical considering the time available and the distance between residences. The other parent is under no obligation to provide the child care. If the other parent elects to provide this care, it shall be done at no cost and without affecting child support. The parent exercising additional parenting time shall provide the necessary transportation unless the parties otherwise agree.

Commentary

The rule providing for opportunities for additional parenting time promotes the concept that a child receives greater benefit from being with a parent rather than a child care provider who is not a household family member. The household family member is defined as an adult person residing in the household, who is related to the child by blood, marriage or adoption. The rule is also intended to be practical. When a parent's work schedule or other regular activities require hiring or arranging for a child care provider who is not a household family member, the other parent should be given the opportunity to provide the care. Distance, transportation or time may make the rule impractical. The period of absence which triggers the exchange will vary depending upon the circumstances of the parties. Parents should agree on the amount of child care time and the circumstances that require the offer be made. It is presumed that this rule applies in all cases which the guidelines cover; however, the parties or a trial court may, within discretion, determine that a deviation is necessary or appropriate. Any such deviation must be accompanied by a written explanation. See Shelton v. Shelton, 840 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2006)

This section is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the “right of first refusal.” It is more accurate to refer to this section as an opportunity to exercise additional parenting time.
From one of CJane's links above:

Amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Provides that if the court finds that it is in the best interest of the child and awards joint custody or visitation rights, the court shall find that both parties have the right of first refusal to care for the minor children if the absence of either party is necessary during the party's normal parenting time. Provides that the use of baby-sitters, family members, or subsequent spouses is secondary to the right of first refusal. Provides that "right of first refusal" means that in the event that either parent intends to leave the minor children for a period of 4 hours or longer, that parent shall first offer the other parent an opportunity for additional time with the children before making other arrangements for the temporary care of the children. Contains provisions concerning the setting of parameters regarding distance, transportation, and time constraints which may make the offering of additional parenting time impractical and therefore not required. Provides that the parent leaving the children with the other parent or with a temporary child care provider shall notify the other parent of the duration of the parenting time or temporary care of the children by other persons.
I see the bolded intentions of the legislature as causing many many problems.
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
Indiana has ROFR built into the parenting time guidelines. I personally am in favor of it.

3. Opportunity for Additional Parenting Time. When it becomes necessary that a child be cared for by a person other than a parent or a responsible household family member, the parent needing the child care shall first offer the other parent the opportunity for additional parenting time, if providing the child care by the other parent is practical considering the time available and the distance between residences. The other parent is under no obligation to provide the child care. If the other parent elects to provide this care, it shall be done at no cost and without affecting child support. The parent exercising additional parenting time shall provide the necessary transportation unless the parties otherwise agree.

Commentary

The rule providing for opportunities for additional parenting time promotes the concept that a child receives greater benefit from being with a parent rather than a child care provider who is not a household family member. The household family member is defined as an adult person residing in the household, who is related to the child by blood, marriage or adoption. The rule is also intended to be practical. When a parent's work schedule or other regular activities require hiring or arranging for a child care provider who is not a household family member, the other parent should be given the opportunity to provide the care. Distance, transportation or time may make the rule impractical. The period of absence which triggers the exchange will vary depending upon the circumstances of the parties. Parents should agree on the amount of child care time and the circumstances that require the offer be made. It is presumed that this rule applies in all cases which the guidelines cover; however, the parties or a trial court may, within discretion, determine that a deviation is necessary or appropriate. Any such deviation must be accompanied by a written explanation. See Shelton v. Shelton, 840 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2006)

This section is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the “right of first refusal.” It is more accurate to refer to this section as an opportunity to exercise additional parenting time.


That's VERY different to what Illinois has enacted.
 

single317dad

Senior Member
That's VERY different to what Illinois has enacted.
Yes, I see how it could be quite different. I don't have any "responsible household members" so it's not so different for me as it would be for someone who remarried. I live far enough away from the ex now that I have that escape clause as well.
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
Yes, I see how it could be quite different. I don't have any "responsible household members" so it's not so different for me as it would be for someone who remarried. I live far enough away from the ex now that I have that escape clause as well.
It could be argued that we don't have any responsible household members here, either :D

Well, I guess the doggy is responsible at times...
 

single317dad

Senior Member
I see the bolded intentions of the legislature as causing many many problems.
I think it does overstep a little, especially with the notification requirements, but I'm not as worked up as others are. I think kids are better off with a parent a majority of the time. I don't think 8+ hours a day at a babysitter is in the best interest of most children. Just an opinion, and I welcome differing views.

On the one hand, I wish the ex was someone I could leave our son with on days I have business that I can't take him to. I'd love for them to spend that extra bonding time. Unfortunately, that's not something that's possible with the current situation. Now, if I'm running to town for an hour? That's a different story. But this statute as written wouldn't apply to that scenario.
 

single317dad

Senior Member
It could be argued that we don't have any responsible household members here, either :D

Well, I guess the doggy is responsible at times...
I originally typed my response with (myself included), then removed it as I figured the wine hadn't started flowing yet and we weren't ready for comedy time :)
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Yes, I see how it could be quite different. I don't have any "responsible household members" so it's not so different for me as it would be for someone who remarried. I live far enough away from the ex now that I have that escape clause as well.
Also, there is a difference between it being in the guidelines and becoming a statutory requirement. A judge can deviate from our guidelines or parents can make an agreement deviating from our guidelines. No deviation is possible when its a statutory requirement.
 

CJane

Senior Member
I think it does overstep a little, especially with the notification requirements, but I'm not as worked up as others are. I think kids are better off with a parent a majority of the time. I don't think 8+ hours a day at a babysitter is in the best interest of most children. Just an opinion, and I welcome differing views.

On the one hand, I wish the ex was someone I could leave our son with on days I have business that I can't take him to. I'd love for them to spend that extra bonding time. Unfortunately, that's not something that's possible with the current situation. Now, if I'm running to town for an hour? That's a different story. But this statute as written wouldn't apply to that scenario.
8 hours is ALL DAY. 4 hours is dinner and a movie. It frequently happens, in our household, that SoldierBoy and I will decide on a somewhat last minute date night. As it stands now, we can inform one of several teenagers that they're going to watch the younger kids, and be gone. With this statutory requirement, we'd BOTH have to call our Exes and offer them the time with the children, and arrange transportation, and pack overnight bags, and get the kids together, and never actually go anywhere because THAT is a PITA.

It's a ridiculous requirement that infringes on EVERYONE, including the children who - most of the time - would really rather the adults in the household just left them to their Minecraft games instead of shuffling them off all the time.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top