Child Custody Appeal, Cook County Illinois

THIS APPEAL INVOLVES A QUESTION OF CHILD CUSTODY,AFFECTING THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD

No. 11-1608IN THEAPPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOISFIRST DISTRICTIN RE MARRIAGE OF)Appeal from the Circuit CourtDAVID XXXXX)of Cook County, IllinoisPetitioner-Appellant(divorce))Respondent-Appellant (on OOP))-vs.-)No. 09 D XXXX)CATHERINE XXXXX)Respondent-Appellee(divorce))Honorable David HaraczPetitioner-Appellee (On OOP))Judge Presiding

BRIEF AND ARGUMENT FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT(ON DISOLUTION OF MARRIAGE [“DIVORCE”] ANDRESPONDENT-APPELLANT ON ORDER OF PROTECTION (“OOP”) ______________________________________ DAVID X. XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Petitioner-Appellant (Divorce), Pro Se Respondent-Appellant (OOP), Pro Se

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES1.Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that equal parentingby the father would “endanger seriously the children’s mental and emotionalhealth” resulting in its order denying equal parenting and requiring only supervisedvisits was against the manifest weight of the evidence.page

Shimanovsky v. General Motors Corp

., 181 Ill.2d 112, 229 Ill.Dec.513, 692 N.E.2d 286 (1998) ………………………………………………. 19

McClaughry v. Village of Antioch,

296 Ill.App.3d 636, 230 Ill.Dec.1002, 695 N.E.2d 492 (1998). ……………………………………………... 20

Creaser v. Creaser

, 342 Ill.App.3d 215, 794 N.E.2d 990, 276 Ill.Dec.740 (2003)[2

nd

Dist Ill. App.] …………………………………………….. 20, 21750 ILCS 60/205…………………………………………………………… 20

People v. Houar

, 365 Ill.App.3d 682, 850 N.E.2d. 327,302 Ill.Dec. 890 (2006) ………………………………………………… 20

LaSalle Bank v. Seguban

, 54 F.3d 387, 390 (7

th

Cir. 1995) …………… .. 22, 23

People v. Carpenter,

28 Ill.2d 116, 121, 190 N.E.2d 738 (1963)……… … 23750 ILCS 60/101………………………………………………………….. 23750 ILCS 5/506 (a)(3) ………………………………………………………23

Scales v. Benne,

2011 IL APP (1

st

) 102, 253,---N.E.2d----,2011 WL 45795999 Ill.App. 1 Dist., 2011 ……………………………..… 27

2.Whether the judgment was against the best interests of the children.

In Re Marriage of Seitzinger

, 333 Ill.App.3d 103, 775 N.E.2d282 266 Ill.Dec. 720 (2002) ……………………………………………….. 28, 29

In re Marriage of Radae

(1991), 208 Ill.App.3d 1027, 153 Ill.Dec.802, 567 N.E.2d 760 ……………………………………………………….28, 29

In re Marriage of Sorenson

(1984), 127 Ill.App.3d 967, 82 Ill.Dec.906, 469 N.E.2d 440.)” at 310 …………………………………………….29

In re Marriage of Wycoff

, 266 Ill.App.3d 408, 410, 639 N.E.2d897, 203 Ill.Dec. 338 (1994)……………………………………………… 29

2

In re Marriage of Pease

(1982), 106 Illl.App.3d 617, 62 Ill.Dec.389, 435 N.E.2d 1361……………………………………………………..29

In re Marriage of Apperson

(1991), 215 Ill.App.3d 378, 384,158 Ill.Dec. 864, 868, 574 N.E.2d 1257, 1261……………………………29S. Goldstein & A. Solnit, Divorce & Your Child 66 (1984)………………30

Creaser v. Creaser

, 342 Ill.App.3d 215, 794 N.E.2d 990, 276 Ill.Dec.740 (2003)[2

nd

Dist Ill. App.] …………………………………………….. 31

People v. Houar

, 365 Ill.App.3d 682, 850 N.E.2d. 327,302 Ill.Dec. 890 (2006) ………………………………………………… 31

3.Whether the judgment is void due to the Court systematically committingstatutory due process violations that deprived Petitioner of the constitutional rightto a fair trial under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as Article I,Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution.

Frerichs v. State

2011 IL APP (4

th

) 101,046, ---N.E.2d----,2011 WL 4793541 Ill.App. 4 Dist., 2011………………………………… 33750 ILCS 60/220………………………………………………………….33750 ILCS 60/213…………………………………………………………..33

Austin v. Smith

, 312 F.2d 337, 343 (1962)………………………………

Felzak v. Hruby

, 367 Ill.App.3d 695, 855 N.E.2d 202 (2006) …………. 35

In re Marriage of Stefiniw

, 253 Ill.App.3d 196, 625 N.E.2d358 (1st Dist. 1993) …………………………………………………….. 36

U.S. v. Will

, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d392, 406 (1980)………………………………………………………….36750 ILCS 60/218…………………………………………………………36

Martin-Tregona v. Roderick,

29 Ill.App.3d 553, 331 N.E.2d 100 (1st Dist. 1975)………………………………………………36.

Armstrong v. Obucino

, 300 Ill. 140, 143 (1921)………………………….37