* Usually, bills based on extreme cases can get a bit outta hand. But there are lots of problems out there with visitation rights, with parents using children as weapons in nasty divorces. So, this may not be too unreasonable…
A bill that increases the penalties for parents who violate visitation agreements passed out of an Illinois House committee on Wednesday on a unanimous vote. The proposal now goes before the full House.
House Bill 1604 allows judges to impose fines and possible jail time if visitation is continually denied.
The so-called “Steven Watkins bill” stems from the 2008 case where Watkins was fatally shot when he went to pick up daughter Sidney, now 3, for a court-ordered visit in Ashland. Shirley Skinner, the grandmother of Watkins ‘ ex-wife, Jennifer Watkins , was convicted of first-degree murder in the killing and is serving a 70-year sentence.
Steven Watkins’ parents were granted visitation rights with Sidney, but Jennifer Watkins has not produced the girl for court-ordered visits.
* The bill does a lot more than impose fines and jail time. It grants judges a lot of new powers…
Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code and the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Provides that the court, upon finding that a party engaged in visitation abuse, may: suspend the offending party’s Illinois driving privileges pursuant to the Illinois Vehicle Code until the court has determined that there has been sufficient compliance for a sufficient period of time with the court’s order concerning visitation and that full driving privileges shall be reinstated; order that the offending party be issued a family responsibility driving permit to allow limited driving privileges for employment and medical purposes; order that an entity that issued a professional license to the offending party suspend or revoke the party’s professional license for a period of no more than 6 months; and fine the party not more than $500 for each finding of visitation abuse. Provides that a finding of visitation abuse constitutes a change in circumstances for purposes of a modification of a custody judgment. Provides that if a parent has been previously found in contempt by the court for visitation abuse, the court may further: incarcerate the offending parent one day for each day of denied visitation; or require the offending party to post a $5,000 bond subject to forfeiture for the purpose of assuring compliance with future visitation.
* By the way, an arrest warrant has been issued for Jennifer Watkins because she defied a judge’s order...
A Cass County judge has ordered the arrest of the widow of the late Steven Watkins for not allowing visits between the couple’s 3-year-old daughter and the murdered man’s parents.
The visits between Sidney Watkins and her paternal grandparents, Dale and Penny Watkins, stopped Nov. 26 because the child and mother Jennifer Watkins reportedly moved to Florida.
Jennifer Watkins did not appear Tuesday at a hearing on multiple petitions that Dale and Penny Watkins’ attorneys filed seeking she be held in contempt of court and a warrant issued for her arrest.
Jennifer Watkins’ attorneys, Michael Goldberg of Chicago and Dan Fultz of Springfield, told Judge Bob Hardwick Jr. they do not know where she is and could not provide any defense because they have been unable to communicate with her.
Thoughts?
…Adding… This ruling may not go down well with some…
The First Amendment protects hateful protests at military funerals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an 8-1 decision.
“Speech is powerful,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.”
But under the First Amendment, he went on, “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
Illinois already has a law on its books restricting the protests (which were enacted because of those idiot cultists who protest at military funerals), but there was a push this year to strengthen it…
State Rep. Frank Mautino, D-Spring Valley, is backing legislation to discourage loud and threatening protests at funerals.
“Hateful rhetoric has no place at private ceremonies like funerals where mourners should be able to pay their final respects in peace,” said Mautino. “That right cannot be infringed, so we should do all we can to keep discouraging, despicable protests from taking place at funerals, especially when fallen soldiers are laid to rest.”
In response to demonstrations by a Kansas-based group that regularly protests the families and funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, including funerals in Illinois, in 2006 Mautino and the General Assembly passed the Let Them Rest in Peace Act — a law prohibiting anyone from protesting loudly, blocking access to and from any funeral and displaying threatening words or images 30 minutes before, during and 30 minutes after a funeral or memorial service.
Under current law, protesters cannot be within 200 feet of the entrance or exit of the cemetery or memorial facility. The law defines protesting as disorderly conduct, which includes loud protests of singing, chanting, whistling or yelling, and displaying any visual images that convey fighting words or actual or veiled threats against any other person.
* Who is your favorite Illinois politician who is not from the party you generally support? In other words, if you’re a Democrat, who is your fave Repub? Etc.
Let’s keep this confined to currently serving politicos, please. Thanks.
* This won’t cause any controversy and over-hyped misinterpretation at all. Nope…
The names of people authorized to own guns in Illinois is public information that the state must disclose, the attorney general has ruled.
The Illinois State Police determines who gets Firearm Owners Identification cards but has always kept the information confidential.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office issued a letter Monday rejecting state police arguments that releasing the information is an invasion of privacy prohibited by the state public-records law or that disclosure would endanger the lives of gun owners.
The State Police say they “respectfully disagree” with AG Madigan’s opinion, which was prompted by a FOIA request by the Associated Press.
* There aren’t any state laws which specifically keep the information private, but you can expect legislators will be moving measures to do so. Gubernatorial candidate state Sen. Kirk Dillard already introduced a bill in January…
“In January I introduced legislation that would declare Firearm Owners Identification information private. I am urging Director Keen by letter to give lawmakers the opportunity to consider my legislation before making this information public,” Dillard said.
He said he is worried the information could be used by criminals and commercial solicitors.
“I will also ask Senate President John Cullerton and House Speaker Michael Madigan to expedite consideration on this landmark issue of privacy and public safety,” he said. “In this era of Big Brotherism, I am concerned that the list will not only be used by commercial solicitors, but could be used by criminals to identify which homes might contain a firearm, so they know which homes to systematically burglarize.
“The attorney general’s opinion will compromise firearm regulation if people are worried that their names will be identified, which could lead to more straw purchases of guns or total non-compliance,” Dillard said. “This is not about guns — it’s about privacy and public safety.”
Proponents of releasing the information argue that it’s a public policy issue. “There should be public scrutiny on any licensing system, whether it’s to own or to buy or to carry,” Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence told the Tribune. “The public has a right to know how well those systems are working, especially when it involves firearms.” But opponents of releasing the information, such as Todd Vandermyde, Illinois lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, think that if people know who has a card who doesn’t, those who own and don’t own firearms alike will become targets. “You potentially make us targets,” Vandermyde told the Tribune. “Or, on the inverse, you could say, ‘These are the homes that don’t have FOID cards so it’s likely they don’t have guns, so therefore they make better targets.’”
* But the fears appear to be at least somewhat overblown. From a Madigan letter to Illinois Review…
The only information our office has advised should be released is the FOID cardholder’s name and the effective date or expiration date of the card. No other personal information is to be released.
So, there won’t be any addresses released. Not even the names of towns would be listed.
State officials are investigating whether religious agencies that receive public funds to license foster care parents are breaking anti-discrimination laws if they turn away openly gay parents.
If they are found in violation, Lutheran Child and Family Services, Catholic Charities in five regions and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency will have to license openly gay foster parents or lose millions of state dollars, potentially disrupting more than 3,000 foster children in their care.
Though Illinois legislators championing the civil union bill earlier this year insisted that religious institutions would not be forced to bless same-sex unions, it said nothing about same-sex parents.
Now, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Gov. Pat Quinn’s legal team and the Department of Children and Family Services are carefully researching the Illinois Human Rights Act, the Civil Union Act and the Illinois Constitution to determine whether they prohibit agencies from considering sexual orientation as a factor in foster care and adoption. In Illinois, all adults who adopt or become foster care providers must obtain foster care licenses.
*** UPDATE *** The Illinois Policy Institute’s John O’Hara was on Chicago Tonight yesterday and said the real issue here was whether the country will have “two classes of people: a highly politically powerful, public employee unions and everyone else who pays for their salaries.” Watch…
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* One of the refugee legislators from Indiana was at the Illinois Statehouse last night and spoke briefly at a Senate Education Committee meeting…
[Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon] said she chose to stop by the education committee because the subject is “one of the reasons we’re fighting.”
“The most important thing that we can do is provide a free and quality education to our students,” Reardon said. “The fact that this governor in Indiana does not recognize the contributions that educators make is very disappointing to me”
State Sen. James Meeks, D-Chicago, chairman of the committee, used his microphone to ask the fleeing lawmaker: “Is there any kind of reward for you?” […]
Reardon said she would remain in Urbana, Ill., for “as long as it takes.”
I was at a different meeting and missed that one. But it’s kind of ironic that she stopped by an education hearing, considering what the Illinois Federation of Teachers thinks about a proposed education reform…
(T)he Illinois Federation of Teachers is watching a proposed legislation that they say is an attempt to eliminate collective bargaining for teachers.
“It’s actually worse than that Gov. Walker is proposing in Wisconsin,” said federation spokesman Dave Comerford. He said the proposal would make it so “the district could legally walk in and say they’re going to cut pay and there’s literally no recourse” for the unions.
The group responsible for the proposal, which was heard by a special committee convened by Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), is supported by a coalition of child advocacy and business groups. While Comerford said they are by no means taking these measures for granted, “I think our lawmakers are watching what’s going on [in Madison] and saying they hope it won’t happen here.”
The leader of boycotting House Democrats plans to return to Indianapolis.
Spokesman John Schorg says House Minority Leader Patrick Bauer will return from Illinois to Indianapolis for a meeting on Wednesday, but it is not clear if the meeting will be with Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma.
House Republican spokeswoman Tory Flynn says Bosma does not have any meeting scheduled with Bauer.
[Sen. Tim Cullen, D-Janesville] said he was one of the Dems who met [Monday] with Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, near Kenosha. He said the meeting was cordial and Dems gave Fitzgerald a list of changes to the budget repair bill that they wanted.
Fitzgerald took the suggestions to the speaker and guv, and they exchanged counter offers later in the day, but couldn’t reach a compromise, Cullen said.
He said he spoke with Fitzgerald this morning, but it wasn’t a negotiating session.
“The door may be closed to the kinds of changes that we need,” Cullen said. “But I think the possibility of talking again will be there.”
* A first-hand look at Wisconsin lawmakers’ life on the lam - Democratic state senator Bob Jauch from Poplar and the rest of the 14 senators who escaped from Wisconsin spent parts of several days last week in the charming northern Illinois town of 22,000 where the movie “Groundhog Day” was filmed.
* Even Without Muni Bond Sale, Wisconsin Not in Fiscal Peril
* Why Your Boss Is Wrong About You: As anybody who has ever worked in any institution — private or public — knows, one of the primary ways employee effectiveness is judged is the performance review. And nothing could be less fair than that.
* Cook County law aimed at tax lawyers questioned: A Cook County ordinance aimed at Assessor Joe Berrios and the piles of money that tax attorneys threw at him during last year’s assessor’s race may be unconstitutional. That’s the opinion of the state’s attorney’s office, which in a Feb. 8 memo says campaign donation limits are a matter of state law, and the county ordinance “violates the separation of powers doctrine established in … the Illinois Constitution.“
* Lawyers warned their Berrios contributions could be illegal
* Foreman: Deadlocked Blago jurors held ‘reunion’: He says a lone holdout juror who prevented conviction on several serious charges helped organize the union but, at the last minute, wasn’t able to attend.
* Immigration crackdown nets 678 arrests, including 14 in Chicago area
* State’s universities urged to partner for more research funding - U. of I. board chief Kennedy calls for more cooperation with businesses and politicians
* Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis quits; Terry Hillard returns
* Agency says it has no file on 2000 complaint about doctor - Physician now seeks to have court records of another incident sealed
This article concludes that legislation enacted to unilaterally reduce the pension benefits of current employees would violate the Pension Clause based on the Clause’s text and origins, constitutional convention debates revealing the framers’ intent, contemporaneous news articles demonstrating voters’ understanding of the Clause, and a host of court decisions construing the Clause.
This circumstance, coupled with the fact that the legislature already had a poor track record of making its actuarially-required pension contributions, caused public employee groups to lobby Convention delegates to include the Pension Clause. These groups reasoned that constitutional protection was necessary because the General Assembly would renege on its pension obligations to public servants during a financial crisis. Convention delegates agreed and included the Clause to foreclose that result.
* Can benefits be unilaterally changed by the General Assembly for current employees? Madiar says no…
The article finds that the Pension Clause not only makes a public employee’s participation in a pension system an enforceable contractual relationship, but also constitutionally protects the pension benefit rights contained in the Illinois Pension Code when an employee joins a pension system, including employee contribution rates. The Clause also safeguards pension benefit enhancements that are later added during employment. Further, the Clause ensures that pensions will be paid even if a pension system defaults or is on the verge of default.
* However, there is a way to change those benefits. And it involves that new national bugaboo word “collective bargaining”…
(W)hile the Clause bars the General Assembly from adversely changing the benefit rights of current employees via unilateral action, these rights are “contractual” in nature and may be modified through contractual principles. In sum, while welching on public pension promises is not an option for Illinois as some legal and civic commentators have suggested, legitimate contract principles provide a solution to mitigate this crisis.
That looks to be the Senate Democrats’ stance for the spring session: It’s up to the governor to negotiate any pension changes with the public worker unions.
