The issue of First-Refusal Rights often come up in Bloomington Illinois divorces. I thought this was interesting:
Family law and visitation
House Bill 2992
(Harms, R-Watseka; Silverstein, D-Chicago) allows a court to consider, consistent with the best interest of the child, whether to award to one or both of the parties the "right of first refusal" to provide child care for the minor child or children during the other parent's normal parenting time. Although the parties may agree to a right of first refusal, if they do not, and the court determines that a right of first refusal is in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider new statutory criteria and make provisions for it consistent with the best interest of the child. It doesn't affect use of a substitute child-care provider for emergency situations and applies only if a party intends to leave the minor child or children with a substitute child-care provider for a significant period of time. Passed the House and on second reading in the Senate.
Want to comment on this bill?
--
Jon D. McLaughlin
House Bill 2992
(Harms, R-Watseka; Silverstein, D-Chicago) allows a court to consider, consistent with the best interest of the child, whether to award to one or both of the parties the "right of first refusal" to provide child care for the minor child or children during the other parent's normal parenting time. Although the parties may agree to a right of first refusal, if they do not, and the court determines that a right of first refusal is in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider new statutory criteria and make provisions for it consistent with the best interest of the child. It doesn't affect use of a substitute child-care provider for emergency situations and applies only if a party intends to leave the minor child or children with a substitute child-care provider for a significant period of time. Passed the House and on second reading in the Senate.
Want to comment on this bill?
Jon D. McLaughlin
(309) 319-6206
THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. ANY RECIPIENT OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS ADVISED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, COPYING, OR OTHER USE OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To the extent that this message or any attachment concerns tax matters, it is not intended to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by law.
THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. ANY RECIPIENT OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS ADVISED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, COPYING, OR OTHER USE OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To the extent that this message or any attachment concerns tax matters, it is not intended to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by law.
Will judges now be able to insert a "first right of refusal' clause into a Visitation Order? Could not judges do this already in Illinois?
ReplyDelete