Do you think the law entitles you to a fair hearing? Do you think you have to be given the right to speak in your own, or you children's defense? Do you think you have to be given your "day in court"? Think again.
The fact is, you don't.
From my experience with two different Whiteside County Circuit Court judges, spanning almost nine years, a judge can tell you that he's already heard testimony that neither you, nor any of your witnesses, have ever been allowed to address. A judge can tell you he is already aware of evidence you have never been allowed to present. A judge can, and will, suppress years of irrefutable evidence and credible testimony regarding life and death matters, while announcing that he "already knows what's going on", and that he has "already heard all about your case".
You might be inclined to accept such allegations if I was talking about some 16 year old in court for his 3rd time on speeding charges, but not in a case regarding the very lives of infants and toddlers, right?
From what I have witnessed, these judges do not want to hear from (read: "waste their time on") individual members of the community who not only pay their salaries, but whose lives - and whose children's lives - lie in the balance. They only want to communicate with other lawyers - and only local lawyers. If after years of frustration, desperate to secure some kind of protection for your children, you find it necessary to hire an attorney from outside the local "good 'ole boy" network, you will immediately find that they don't want to hear from your lawyer, either. These judges can, and will, allow a local opposing attorney to make clearly false and malicious claim after claim against you, and then tell you and your attorney that "you're not allowed to talk".
In my opinion, the first of these judges I shall discuss is so concerned with stroking his own ego by humiliating and intimidating those who have entrusted with the power of his office, that it clearly gets in the way of his application of the law in a fair and just manner. The second appears to be wholly concerned with avoiding the chore of actually listening to the facts of a case at any cost - including the continual abuse and endangerment of children, and the alienation of a parent. This judge will, and has, use both financial assault and verbal insult as means of intimidation and punishment, in retaliation for insistence that a case be taken seriously.
If you find yourself having to fight for your children's lives in a Whiteside County court room, be prepared to have everything you have ever worked for - for yourself and for your children - to be taken away from you in retaliation for trying to bring such "petty" matters as your children's safety and welfare to the court's attention. Expect to hear officers of the court openly joke about you and your children's plight one moment, followed by angry outbursts and uncontionably unjust and counter-productive decisions the next. Let me give you a few examples from my experience:
Judge X
Judge X originally handled my case. He was the presiding judge the first day I was in court to file for my divorce. On the way out, in front of a fairly filled court room, Judge X engaged me in conversation, telling me all about going to college with my brother, and about growing up in Morrison near my bother's wife.
Some time later, I was granted an Emergency Order of Protection against my children's mother by another judge - one who, based on previous court room experience with the woman, strongly suggested I take the order directly to the Sherriffs Department myself, and instruct them not to deliver the order until I had the children safely in my possession. This judge said she remembered the children's mother's behavior, from over a year prior to this, as indicative that she was likely, and very capable of, carrying out her threats of harming the children upon being served with the Order of Protection.
About five days later, and after eight phone calls to my then attorney's office notifying her of the impending court date, I arrived in Judge X's court room for the plenary hearing on the Order of Protection, without any legal representation. (My attorney later claimed to have never received any of the messages.) When Judge X asked me if I was ready to proceed with the hearing, I responded that I expected to have one of my attorneys present, that I had made many phone calls to their office over the last few days notifying them of the scheduled hearing, was told in most cases that one or more of them were in the office but could not come to the phone, but they would be (and later, had been) given the message. I asked that the hearing be continued long enough for me to either call them on the phone, or run the 1 block to their office and get them, and was denied.
Judge X turned this serious matter - this chance to protect myself and my children from abuse - into nothing more than an opportunity to insult and humiliate me. He asked me sarcastically why I wasn't prepared for my hearing, and said something to the affect that this was all my idea, I was the reason we were all here waiting, and that I was the reason all their time was being wasted. He tauntingly ordered me to call my first witness. I said that I hadn't brought any witnesses. "Then present your evidence," he sarcastically ordered. I said "I didn't know I was supposed to, or was even allowed to present any physical evidence. I really don't know how this works. I was really expecting my attorney to be here to help with this. Couldn't I just tell you what happened?" Judge X responded - and I want to make sure it is understood that this is a direct quote - "No, you're not allowed to talk." He then proceeded to let the children's mother's attorney tell lie after lie about me, describing how this was just one more example of my constant harassment of this poor dear woman who only wants to care of her children and move on with her life.
Here I was, there to get some sort of relief from a woman who, among many other much worse things, was making literally 35-50 harassing, threatening phone calls a day to me, my girlfriend, and several others at my place of employment...and I'm not allowed to talk! Instead, her attorney gets to go on at length, telling some made up story about me requesting the Emergency Order of Protection in retaliation for an argument we were supposedly having regarding her taking the children out of the state (which I had no knowledge of, whatsoever, at the time). Judge X never did let me say one word regarding my reasons for seeking the Order of Protection, or in response to her attorney's accusations against me. He threateningly lectured me about wasting the court's time, and of course, ruled against me, removing the emergency order protecting me and the children. Elsewhere in this site you can learn of some of the continual harassment and abuse suffered by my children, myself, my family and loved ones (as well as substantial property damage) as a direct result of Judge X's denial of this order.
Not long after this incident, I was in Judge X's court room again (this time with my attorney ), over her taking the children out of state (intentions I had just learned about during the previous hearing). I came to this hearing with five different audio tape recordings of her threatening to kill the children - some with the children screaming for their lives audible in the background, and two of which were recorded from phone calls she had made while on the same itinerary with the children less than a year before. I also brought to court that day, several witnesses that heard some of the recorded threats first hand, while they were happening. I was also prepared to present testimony that the children would be exposed to constant drug use at the locations she intended to take them to, and that she had twice already taken her own step-sister (once at age 9, and then again at age 12) to the same location, gotten in a fight with her, left her on the beach in a wet swimming suit 680 miles from home, and drove back to Illinois. Incidentally, on the way to court that day, the children's mother stopped by the day care center to pick up our youngest son, so that she could place him in the front row of the court room, listening to everyone talk about his mother threatening to kill him.
Judge X was very insulting to both me and the children's mother from the start. He asked me a question in a very demeaning manner - whether something occurred on a Wednesday or Thursday - or something like that. And when I hesitated, he tried to humiliate me in front of everyone in the court room by sarcastically commenting how I couldn't even recall what day of the week it was. I responded that I was having a little difficulty with questions focusing on particular days of the week because I was so upset that he was allowing the children's mother to intentionally place our son in the court room and be party to our conversations about threats to kill him. I asked that arrangements be made for him to be cared for outside the court room. Even my attorney, who rarely spoke up in my support, asked Judge X why the child was allowed to be present, but he refused to even address the issue.
After conferring with the children's mother, the opposing attorney stated that since I had refused to support the children (100% lie) and the mother was destitute (at this time I was giving her about $28,000 per year, and paying for just about every conceivable expense of hers, the children, and the part time live-in boyfriend that she was vacationing around the country with), she had no one to watch the child, and no other choice but to bring him to court. I turned to my attorney and whispered, "Should you tell him I have every canceled check I have ever written to the day care center, and the register entry for the one I wrote less than an hour ago, right here in my brief case, and I can have the day care teacher here in five minutes to testify that she just picked him up from there?"
At this point Judge X became irate, lecturing both of us, and stating, "I've heard all about [this case] from the deputies that are sick and tired of coming out to your house all the time - and everybody else. You two aren't parents, you're just a couple of baby brats. You don't love this child. You don't care at all about him. All you care about is throwing daggers at each other." (Keep in mind, this is in front of my son.) He turned to the children's mother and said, "Do you understand what I'm saying?" She bowed her head, "Yes sir."
Then he turned to me and said angrily, "Do you understand what I'm saying." I did not respond. "DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING!?!" I answered, "No. I cannot begin to understand why you would act like this when I'm simply trying to get you to protect my children from someone who is constantly threatening to kill them." He responded sarcastically, "Right. That's what I thought. You don't understand anything." Immediately after the hearing, in her office, my attorney told me she wanted to know "what was really going on between [me] and X, or my family and X, or the judges, or police around here", commenting that she had "never seen a person get railroaded out of court the way[ I ] just did".
Several months later, I am yet again in Judge X's court room. When it is time for our hearing, he asks the attorneys to join him in chambers. Later my attorney tells me that Judge X just now realized who I was - claiming that up until just minutes ago in the court room, he thought I was my cousin's son. According to my attorney, Judge X himself did not believe this revelation would cause him to be partial in any way, but he had decided to recuse himself because my father flew him and my brother back and forth to college together, and the other side might see this as suggestion of partiality in my favor. This seemed quite curious to me after the initial conversation Judge X and I had long before in the court room in Morrison, and in light of the fact that not only was my father not a pilot, but his own son hitch-hiked back and forth to school.
Judge Y
Not surprisingly, I was pleased that a new judge, Judge Y, would be handling my case. Very early on, at least compared to Judge X, Judge Y appeared to take a little more time to absorb the facts of the situation before making his rulings. However, it quickly became apparent in succeeding hearings that while Judge Y does not exhibit the same pompous attitude as Judge X, he is not above the same uncaring bias. Throughout most of the years that Judge Y has handled the case, he has shown very little reservation in voicing the fact that he had long since made up his mind regarding its most critical issues, without ever allowing relevant testimony to be heard or evidence to be presented.
On the first day of what was scheduled to be five days of custody hearings, (which took me seven years and roughly $150,000 to bring about), I was told by my attorneys that I had no other choice but to sign a Joint Parenting Agreement. I was told that Judge Y made overtures to the affect that if I did not agree to do so - no matter what testimony our myriad witnesses gave regarding the abuse of the children on the part of the mother, no matter what evidence we presented - if the other side said they were willing to sign a Joint Parenting Agreement, and we weren't - if I was the one who was going to make the judge listen to this crap for the next five days when they were willing to let him get out the door by 11:00 AM - I would "start so far behind the eight ball that [I] would surely loose" - that he would rule against me and I would lose any chance of ever being able to protect my children, simply because they were being "reasonable", and I wasn't.
I was absolutely shocked and incredibly angered. I argued with my attorneys for hours. Eventually they convinced me that I had NO CHOICE. Judge Y asked me if this was what I really wanted. I replied that a joint parenting agreement was not what I expected or wanted, and that I was shocked that we were even discussing it. I said, "I have no reason to believe here today that she will stop the horrifically cruel things she has done to these children throughout there entire lives just because...well , I guess, just because its today, instead of every other day she promised to stop it". He said, "So this isn't what you want?" Under obvious duress from my attorneys and the obvious impatience of the court, I specifically replied, "I am absolutely certain that my children will continue to remain in grave, mortal danger by the signing of this agreement....but I have been convinced by my attorneys that I have no other choice." My statement met with obvious disdain from everyone in the court room, on both sides of the issue, but an annoyed Judge Y reacted in the end as if that was just fine, declaring that the Joint Parenting Agreement was thereby in affect.
Illinois Law clearly indicates that joint parenting is only appropriate, is only deemed in the best interest of the children, and should only be allowed when the two parties have clearly demonstrated a willingness and ability to work together to raise their children. I had spent the last seven years and $150,000 to get full custody of my children in an effort to protect them from a violent, dissociative, borderline drug and alcohol addict, who had vowed to "fuck with" me and the kids as long as she lives. I am hit with this joint parenting "option" (read: black mail) for the first time as I come in the door the day of the custody hearing, I tell him I am certain the children will remain in mortal danger by this agreement, and he orders it anyway! And not only does he order it, he's since stated several times recently in court that I was the one who wanted it, so I'll have to live with it! This is a fine example of the "judgment" of this judge.
Here's another fine example of his judgment: Initially during my divorce, at the insistence of my attorney and over the strongest objections from me, I moved out of the marital residence and into a condominium. After about 4 months or so, the children's mother and I mutually agreed (believe it or not) that I would move back into the house, and she would take the condominium. About 7 months later, I was notified by the owner of the apartment that the lease was coming due, and needed to be resigned if she wished to continue living there. According to the owner, he had written the children's mother several letters, tried to call her on the phone (she would often have her phone disconnected), put notes on her door, and even spoke to her at the place where she tended bar, telling her she simply needed to take 5 minutes to come to his office and sign the lease if she wished to stay. The children's mother refused all of his requests, but obviously did not intend to leave the premises. The owner was thereby asking me to contact her and convince her to either sign the lease or move out.
I soon contacted the children's mother and explained the necessity of signing the lease. She stated that I had to sign it, not her. Of course, I pointed out the fact that she lived there, not me, and that the owner wanted the person actually living in the condo to sign the lease. She responded that that she wasn't going sign the lease, and that she was "...just going to sit on [her] ass and do nothing, and they'll sue you - and then my attorney's going to have the judge make you sign the lease. And as soon as I get your name on there, I'm gonna burn the mother fucker to the ground, and you'll have to pay for it!"
So, about 3 months later, there we are in court, and her attorney is trying to get Judge Y to order me to sign the lease. Judge Y, however, rules otherwise, stating (correctly) that I was ordered to pay her rent, not sign leases for her; and something to the effect of, "Your a big girl, you can sign a lease like everybody else." However, a month or so later, with threats of a law suit from the owner of the condo, we're back in court where her attorney is once again trying to convince Judge Y to have me sign the lease for her condo. Judge Y reminded her attorney that he had already ruled on the issue, and that she was to sign her own lease. And yet a month or two later, we are once again in court - this time because we have been sued by the condo's owner. Only this time, the owner of the condo is saying that because she is such a nut case, and because of the damage he is aware she as already done to the premises, he now will not accept her name alone on the lease.
Obviously, I'm a little biased, but it seems to me an appropriate reaction from the judge here might have been to remind the children's mother that she had every opportunity over the course of several months to remain, rent free, in probably one of the most expensive condo's in town, and that she blew it because she had to be such a wench. Instead, Judge Y ruled that I now had to sign the lease on a property which she vowed to destroy, simply to cause me financial hardship. He also added that the condo's owner had "legitimate legal expenses that had to be paid", and unfortunately, I had money, and she didn't, so I would have to pay his attorney's $500 bill. (Keep in mind, at this point, I had paid the children's mother over $50,000 in "child support" and "temporary maintenance", I had been responsible for all of the children's expenses, and she had taken all of the marital home furnishings.) Regardless of how unfair it is, in spite of what a reward it is for this behavior - and what an incredible incentive it is for similar behavior in the future - the rule of law here is simple: "You have money - pay it." No doubt, in the mind of Judge Y, this incident is just another example of how "...for some strange reason, these two just like to fight with each other."
And how did this episode end? Actually, I'm not sure - years later - that it has. She finally left the condominium - with about $4800 in damages. The place was brand new - I was the first occupant of the condominium, and was only there a few months. When I left, it was perfect. When she moved out, the garage door was severely damaged; all the door locks had to be repaired or replaced, all of the carpeting throughout the entire condo had to be replaced. (In spite of the "no pets" rule, there was cat pee everywhere.) All of the condo's wood trim had to be replaced and painting was necessary throughout because she had splattered paint everywhere. A large whole in the wall had to be repaired due to a physical fight she got into with her brother in front of the kids. According to the kids, she through a pumpkin, or a TV, or both through the sliding glass door going out to the porch, but it was apparently replaced before this. So far, I haven't had to pay for all this (yet).
To give you an example of judges openly stating in court they already know all the facts about a case before hearing any testimony (when they don't), consider my property settlement hearing: The children's mother intentionally did over $78,000 worth of documented property damage to my home, its contents, vehicles, etc. The acts clearly fell into the category of "Waste of Marital Assets", which, under Illinois law, is something the marital estate is to be reimbursed for. Yet, when my attorney brought up the first of these issues during the hearing, and her attorney, of course, objected ("He's berating my client again!"), Judge Y allowed me to finish my answer regarding that particular incident, but told my attorney that he did not want to hear any more testimony regarding the destruction of my property by the children's mother, adding, "...I've already heard all this before." Here I've been pulling my hair out for years, helplessly watching this person destroy tens of thousands of dollars worth of my property in fits of violent rage, all the while gloating that it'll never even be brought up in court, and he says that he's not to let any of it be even brought to the court's attention because he's "already heard all this before"?!? Then why are we even having a property settlement hearing? And who has he heard all this from? In seven years, I've never been allowed to testify or present any witnesses to testify to this, but he's already discounted over $78,000 due to me on the grounds that he already heard about it?!?
And while we're on the topic of the property settlement: My current attorney actually did a good job of pointing out some of the Judge Y's gross errors in his written opinion, such as his refusal to hear evidence of substantial waste of marital assets, such as awarding the children's mother exorbitant "child support" - way above and beyond state guidelines for a woman who has full custody of, and bares financial responsibility for two children, to a mother who has actually always had joint custody, has the children about 50% of the time, and had always had all of the children's and the vast majority of her own expenses paid for by the father. Further substantial errors In Judge Y's opinion included rewarding the children's mother with a large sum of money based on the increased value of the father's stocks purchased 25+ years before the marriage and never transmuted into marital property, and in rewarding the children's mother with more than $40,000 in "rehabilitative maintenance" over a time period roughly 3 times greater than the actual marriage. Judge Y also never gave me credit for the approximately $150,000 in "temporary maintenance" that I paid the children's mother, as ordered, in the first five years of our separation, and has, in affect, ordered me to pay it again. In spite of the respectable job my current attorney put forth in pointing out these and other clear cut violations of state law involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, Judge Y refused to consider the possibility that he could have made any substantial errors in his opinion, and denied our motion to reconsider.
Perhaps what best exemplifies Judge Y's closed minded bias was his statement to my current attorney his first day in front of the judge. As my then new attorney was introducing himself to the judge prior to presenting our petition, Judge Y stopped him in mid sentence saying, "Stop right there, Mr. D---------. First of all, welcome to this case. This case is not about any petition, or motion, or what ever you have in your hand. This case is not about, has never been about, and I'm sure by the time I retire, will still be going and will have never been about anything other than the fact that these two people, for some strange reason, love to fight with each other. Now what did you want to tell me about?"
More recently, when the children's mother had managed to get herself and the children thrown out of the house she illegally moved into, my attorney requested an emergency hearing to secure temporary full custody of the children to insure the children had a roof over their heads. (The mother was living in a tent in a neighbor's yard.) The first thing Judge Y did upon our entering the court room was ball me and my attorney out for wasting the 20 minutes of his lunch break. He did, however, rule in my favor, granting me temporary full custody of the children, but added, in punishment, that the mother would be allowed 4 hours of visitation per day "at her convenience, not yours." He also apparently thought justice was served in my continuing to pay the children's mother what amounted to $6396 in "child support" over the 43 days she took to take up another residence (next door to her reportedly crystal meth addicted brother), and I cared for the children full time.
Judge Y seldom hesitates to ridicule me (and to be fair, the children's mother, as well ) for using the children as "ping pong balls", often making comments in court suggesting that I should be ashamed for continuing this "petty bickering" for so long. And all Judge Y ever had to do to end this petty waste of time, at any time, was to grant me one day, one hour, or even one minute to present just one witness to the terrible abuse of my children on the part of the mother. In the amount of time he has spent ridiculing me over the years, he could have heard a substantial portion of his own court ordered psychologists who have spent hundreds of hour investigating the case, and have subsequently filed abuse charges against the mother with DCFS, and whose official report, I have been told by another attorney, Judge Y has commented he does not intend to even read.
It seems to me that just about every action, or lack of action on the part of Judge Y has not only prolonged this case, but has truly incentivized both the children's mother and her attorney to constantly escalate the attacks on me and the children throughout the last nine years. In the words of the children's mother herself: "I'll never have to answer to you, or the judge, or any man - or any court order. I can do whatever I want to you, or these kids, or your mom, and I'll never have to answer to any of it. My attorney says I won't lose custody 'cause he's going to see that it never even comes up. So you just keep taking me back to court, and every time you do, they'll just keep making you pay me more money - they always have and they always will." (I have this recorded, by the way.)
Her statement very accurately describes the years in Judge Y's court. And her attorney knows full well that (from what I have witnessed) contrary to Illinois law, at least for his law firm, in a domestic case, there is no penalty in Judge Y's court room for perjury, or for pursuing knowingly false and malicious suits. He aggressively uses this fact to the full extent of his abilities, for both his client's and his own personal gain, in total disregard for the fact that he is, in doing so, playing the pivotal role in keeping my children in the neglectful, abusive environment they have known their entire lives. Just a few examples:
The only issue regarding the children's mother's behavior that has ever been allowed to be brought up in court is her drug use. In court, after everyone had taken their oaths to tell the truth, her attorney told the judge that an "extensive under cover investigation" had already been conducted by the parole office which "determined conclusively" that she does not, nor has she ever had any involvement in illegal drug use whatsoever. Now, I'm no legal expert, but even the perjury issue aside, I would think that if a judge really wanted to get to the truth of the matter - one so important as the lives of two young children - he might suggest to the children's mother and to her attorney, that this was the biggest crock of shit he has ever heard. Surely both Judge Y, as well as her attorney, are aware, as was I after one phone call to the Whiteside County Probation Office, that that office - and I quote the children's mother's parole officer - "...does not conduct under cover drug operations" on its parolees. But an attorney, at least one from this law firm, making claims like this apparently doesn't even raise an eye brow in Judge Y's court room.
And while we're on the subject of drug use, call this corruption, or just plain negligence: After a full day (or was it two?) hearing, Judge Y ruled in my favor that there was sufficient cause to order the children's mother to undergo a test for illegal drugs. After hours and hours of hearings, and thousands of dollars in legal bills, upon announcement of the verdict, the children's mother's attorney professed that the children's mother had in fact, already undergone a drug test, and the results were negative. And that was it. Over. No, "Really? Can I see the results of the test?" No, "Exactly what kind of test did she take?" No, "That's interesting that you just now bring this fact to the court's attention, especially if it turned out negative." No, "When did she take it?" No, "Who administered it?" Just done, over, issue put to rest. Unbelievable. If one was to be tried for doing something terrible to the children's mother's attorney, he should hope to get Judge Y for a judge. That way if he is found guilty, he can just have his attorney say, "Well actually, your honor, my client has already served life in prison", and just walk out the door.
Another example: Except for several times when the mother had refused to take the children or abandoned them - vanishing before getting her check - and a few times when I have been 2 to 4 days late (my fault), I have always paid exactly what the court has ordered me to pay in maintenance and "child support", exactly when I when I was ordered to pay it. (This is in addition to covering almost 100% of the children's expenses, as well as tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees in unsuccessful attempts to get Judge Y to order the children's mother to allow me to get the children needed medical care - but that's another story.) In spite of this fact, I have also been burdened throughout this entire ordeal with tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to defend myself against a constant barrage of ridiculous, false accusations by the children's mother's attorney, including that I've never paid the "child support" in a timely manner.
If I was really interested in "throwing daggers", this might be an appropriate time to point out to the reader that this woman, who lays around drinking beer and smoking dope all day, with no rent and almost no child care expenses to pay, collects probably about twice your annual income.
Anyway, in one particular barrage of knowingly false claims against me, over the course of which it was necessary from me to spend roughly $20,000 - $30,000 to defend myself, Judge Y did order that her attorney produce a "Bill of Particulars" in order to proceed with his claims. Basically, this means that if he's saying I never pay the children's mother, he needs to produce some sort of documentation proving, or even suggesting, specific amounts of money and payment times that were not met. Knowing that he could not produce such a document, and that I, at any time, could produce canceled checks, bank statements, and court and corporate wage garnishment records proving that the payments had been made in a timely manner, her attorney continued to pursue the matter over and over again in the hopes that Judge Y would wear down, become too frustrated, or just plain forget that he ordered the Bill of Particulars, and order me to pay God knows how many years' worth of "child support" and maintenance AGAIN (an effective tactic on his part throughout the case.)
Several months and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees later, however, Judge Y stuck to his order and demanded the Bill of Particulars. Apparently the tactic wasn't going to work this time, so her attorney, who had been saying all along that I was refusing to pay something like $150,000 that by court order was rightfully due his client, now decided that he was "no longer going to pursue the matter at this time". So what if it cost me twenty or thirty grand, and yet further diverted the court's attention away from the issue of the children's safety and welfare? Who cares that it was a deliberate attempt to extort a huge sum of money from a father fighting for his children's lives? For this attorney at least, there's no penalty in Judge Y's court room for taking a shot. Nor, I have recently observed, is their any penalty for an attorney from this firm who intentionally grossly misrepresents the judge's rulings when given the task of drawing up his orders.
Quite obviously, the children's mother's attorneys looked at her case and thought, wow, there's no way we can defend her against what she keeps doing to these children, so let's make sure we don't have to. We'll present this whole thing as just two arguing ex-spouses, fill up the court's and his attorney's time with attacks against the father, and piss off the judge so much that he just refuses to listen to anything. To hell with what she puts the kids through, we'll eventually get a big chunk of change out of the settlement. And if we can drag the loving father through the mud and get the child abusing psycho witch out driving her Ferrari around town, we'll have even more criminals beating down our door to pay us even higher retainers - and maybe even more publicity in the Gazette. Everyone can see this...apparently except for Judge Y.
For years I have endured insulting lectures from judges X and Y, accusing me of the most contemptible reasons for my persistence in this case - saying that it is about nothing more than petty jealousy and desires for revenge. In actuality, Judge Y aside, it is clear to everyone even remotely involved in this case - no doubt including her own attorney - that this case is about the CHILD ABUSE that continues to torment my children throughout their lives. It is, unfortunately, in all likelihood, about the continuance of the mother's family's cycle of psychiatric disorder, drug addiction, and domestic abuse. It has been turned into being all about greed on the part of the children's mother, and perhaps even more so on the part of her attorney; the apathy and incompetence of local law enforcement agencies, child protection services and judicial system; and the bias and politics of these two judges.
According to Illinois' Mandated Reporting Statute, truant officers, law enforcement officers and probation officers - among many others - are required to report "when they have reasonable cause to believe a child known to them in their professional or official capacity may be an abused or neglected child." From reading the statute, and from what I've witnessed time and time again in court over the last nine years, this does not apply to judges or attorneys. From the point of view of a father of abused and neglected children, their behavior is none the less criminal.
Judge Z
In an effort to be complete, for whatever value the information could be to a parent in a similar situation, and in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, I would like to include a few candid paragraphs on Judge Z.
If you ask local attorneys and former or current State prosecutors about Judge Z, as did I, the responses you'll get range from, "Her heart is definitely in the right place, but she comes up with some pretty off-the-wall rulings" to "completely incompetent". In the four or five (maybe six) times that I have been in her court room over the last seven years or so, both in my case, and while present for others' cases, here are my observations:
One hundred eighty degrees apart from Judge X - and unlike Judge Y once he has concluded that the alleged abuse of your children is a waste of his time - you are immediately impressed with the respect and dignity with which Judge Z treats those before her.
Based on what I've seen, she applies this equally to well-dressed businessmen and women, and people who look like they just spent the last six months sleeping on the sidewalk and have likely been before her several times this week for the same offense. This is not to say that she doesn't "give people what they deserve" when warranted.
She does, however, take the time to make sure each person before her knows the law, their rights, their options, and the potential consequences of their choices. I have never seen anything even remotely like this in either of the other two judges' court rooms in my own case, and rarely in others'. She appears to fairly listen to both sides of an argument, take the time to thoroughly consider the facts - and right or wrong - render the best, most fair judgment she can. Whether she is more often right or wrong in the long run I do not know. But I can say, in this respect she is an anomaly in the Whiteside County judicial system.
I don't say these complimentary things about Judge Z simply because she has ruled in my favor during the very few times she has been involved in my case. I say she has ruled in my favor because she is the one and only judge to have ever listened with an open mind to the pertinent facts of the case. In short, she acts like she actually cares that justice is served - or even more concisely, she just cares.
Most likely, if the children's mother had had a less greedy attorney,
and most certainly if Judge Z had handled the case from the beginning,
my children would have been spared the majority of the torment they continue
to endure after almost a decade.