Law Offices of David M. Siegel Concentrating in Divorce and Family Law (888) 669-9300
FREE Special Report  "5 Critical Mistakes Often Made When Hiring an Attorney & How to Make Sure That You Don't Make the Same Mistakes".
Receive FREE Special Report

I Respect Your Email Privacy

5 Chicago Area Office Locations (Click here to See All Office Locations)
Wheeling
All Correspondence   Chicago
By Appointment Only
790 Chaddick Drive
Wheeling, IL 60090
19 South LaSalle Street, Suite 707
Chicago, IL 60603
(847) 520-8100 (773) 276-6969

Chicago Divorce Lawyers & Attorneys

January 4, 2007

Challenge, Conceding, Continuing & Exclusive

Filed under: Uncategorized — David Siegel @ 5:25 pm

Parties must bring a motion to dismiss within the time for pleading if they wish to challenge the standing of petitioners acting pursuant to subdivision (b)(1) which must allege that the petitioner is not a “parent” within the meaning of the act.  In re Schlam. 

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in conceding jurisdiction to another state where other state was child’s home, had a closer connection with the child and with respondent than did Illinois and there was substantial evidence there, as settlement agreement provided that post decree proceedings would be construed under Illinois law not filed only in Illinois.  In re Walker.

Where respondent was twice made subject to rules to show cause for violating the court’s injunction, and for violating the visitation order, the children told the trial judge that they had seen their father strike and threaten their mother, and the record indicates that there was at least a possibility that the daughter’s physical safety had also been threatened by respondent, on these facts, the trial court’s continued jurisdiction over the children’s welfare following their mother’ death rested on a firm foundation.  Milenkovic v. Milenkovic.
Jurisdiction acquired by a court in a divorce proceeding over the custody and maintenance of children of parties to the suit is not only continuing but is also exclusive and precludes any other court in the state where the custody proceedings were held from later acquiring or exercising jurisdiction over the same subject.  Sommer v. Borovic.

Because the circuit court that rendered divorce decree which awarded custody of children had continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the question of custody, former husband’s filing of a complaint in the circuit court of another county to register the divorce decree was inappropriate and could not operate to confer jurisdiction upon the circuit court of that county.  Summer v. Borovic.
The court’s jurisdiction to alter the custody and support of children is exclusive and continuing until the child or children attain their majority; a decree or order fixing the custody of a child or children is final only as to the conditions then existing.  Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer.

Powered by WordPress

This website contains legal information, and not legal advice.
It's content refers only to the law of the State of Illinois.