Illinois Supreme Court announces new standards for e-filing in trial courts

From: IllinoisLawyer

Chief Justice Thomas L. Kilbride and the Illinois Supreme Court announced on Wednesday new statewide standards and new and amended Supreme Court rules that will allow all courts in Illinois to begin electronic filing of court documents in civil cases.

To date, only five counties in Illinois have been approved to operate e-filing systems as part of a pilot project, mostly on a limited basis. Those counties are Cook, DuPage, Madison, St. Clair and Will. The announcement ends the pilot stage of e-filing in Illinois and allows all circuit court clerks to move to permanent and on-going procedures, if they so wish.

The new statewide principles and standards, new Supreme Court Rule 138 and amended Supreme Court Rule 201, give the go-ahead to civil case e-filing while placing an emphasis on protecting against identify theft and disclosure of sensitive information. They do this by protecting personal identity information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, mother's maiden names, driver's license numbers, financial account numbers and debit and credit card numbers. This information will be barred from documents or exhibits filed with the court—whether in a paper or electronic filing. Discovery responses are prohibited from filing as well, absent leave of court.

The new standards and rules will apply only to civil cases. They are the product of the Illinois Supreme Court Special E-Business Committee announced by Chief Justice Kilbride in June 2011, chaired by Chicago lawyer Bruce Pfaff.

"Illinois is behind on using e-business and e-filing in its courts. We know that," said Chief Justice Kilbride. "These uniform, statewide standards allow e-filing in our courts; it is no longer part of a wish list. Circuit courts may now use e-filing's greater efficiencies and long-range cost savings in addition to offering a modern way of doing things."

The Supreme Court also announced Wednesday an amendment to Supreme Court Rule 11 to allow service of documents electronically in the trial courts. Attorneys and parties must include an e-mail address for service of documents on appearances and pleadings filed in the court.

The new standards and rules will go into effect January 1, 2013. This will allow Circuit Court clerks, chief judges, judges and attorneys sufficient lead time to make required changes to court operations and automated systems. In the interim, the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, under Director Michael J. Tardy, will schedule regional meetings with stakeholders including chief judges, circuit court clerks and court management system vendors to chart the way to best move forward for each individual county.

"This is a great day," said Mr. Pfaff, who runs a law office that is essentially paperless. "Behind the initiative of Chief Justice Kilbride and approval of e-business by the entire Supreme Court, the legal system in Illinois will become more efficient and significantly less expensive to operate. Any county that wishes can adopt e-filing and electronic document management systems and start to take advantage of the power of computers.

"Issues relating to personal privacy have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court and those committees which studied the matter. Our committee thanks all of the court clerks and their staffs from around the country that freely gave their time and expertise to help us choose a set of standards and guidelines that allows Illinois to move forward."

There are several jurisdictions around the nation, including the federal courts' PACER system that uses e-filing and other e-technologies. But there are special challenges associated with e-filing in Illinois.

The challenges stem from the fact that Illinois is comprised of 102 counties organized within 23 Circuit Court jurisdictions and five Appellate districts. Both the state and the counties provide financial support for the operation of the courts. Complicating the matter further in Illinois, there are at least 12 different Circuit Court management software systems operating in the various court jurisdictions. Under the new statewide standards, these management systems have to be integrated with any e-filing program.

Implementation requires the cooperation of various entities within a county, including software vendors.

"The Chief Judge and the elected Circuit Court Clerk will have to agree on implementing an e-filing program and inform the Supreme Court that their system is in accordance with the standards and the rules," said Mr. Tardy, who serves as director of the Supreme Court's administrative arm. "Each county has different priorities, needs and resources. I expect some counties, especially those which have been operating pilot programs, will choose to go forward as soon as they can. Others may wait to see how e-filing develops in counties similar to theirs."

New Supreme Court Rule 138, which applies to both paper and electronic filings, defines and prohibits personal identity information from inclusion in documents or exhibits filed with the court and if a court orders the filing of documents that contain personal identity information, it establishes specific steps to file it under seal in a separate document.

Supreme Court Rule 201 is amended to prohibit the filing of any discovery, which often contains sensitive and personal information, and much of which does not rise to evidence at trial. The e-filing standards do not preclude an e-filing vendor from charging fees for electronic filing, but no additional fee may be charged by the clerk of the circuit court, and no vendor fee may be shared with the clerk.

Since his colleagues elected him Chief Justice in October 2010, Chief Justice Kilbride has moved to make Illinois court operations more economical, more efficient and more user friendly by implementing improvements in technology. E-filing is still underway as a pilot project in the Supreme

Court; in addition, several Illinois counties are participating in pilot projects that allow attorneys, parties and appellate justices to electronically view, access and work from the official record of cases on appeal.

The Special E-Business Committee consulted with representatives from bar groups, appellate lawyers, circuit court clerks and members of the Illinois Judicial Conference. Along with Chair Bruce Pfaff, the Committee members are Sterling attorney Trent L. Bush; Chicago attorney David M. Hundley; Edwardsville attorney Rebecca R. Jackson; Chicago attorney Vanessa G. Jacobsen; Northbrook attorney Alan Pearlman; Wheaton attorneyEdward J. Walsh; and Springfield attorney Thomas H. Wilson.

Illinois Supreme Court Clerk Carolyn Taft Grosboll and Fourth District Appellate Court ClerkCarla Bender serve as ex-officio members of the Committee.

--
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.

New Law regarding Health Expenses, Daycare, and Extra-Curricular Expenses

Up to this point, our firm has been very successful with our requests from McLean County courts for a division of child-related expenses, such as medical costs, daycare, and extra-curricular activities. While there has not been any explicit statute regarding these expenses in the past, there has been case law, from the Illinois Appellate Court, that we have used to assist the judges who want to divide these expenses. But now, the State Legislature has passed Public Act 097-0941. This law amends the Child Support section of the Divorce Statute (Section 505), and specifically states that a court can, in its own discretion, divide these expenses between the parties. While we have found that it was almost a given in every Bloomington divorce (or separation) that medical expenses are divided, a number of judges have, at times, expressed reluctance to split extra-curricular expenses, perhaps worried about over-stepping the proper reach of a court. After January 13th (the date this new law goes into effect), the amended statute gives a court discretion to allocate these expenses between the parties.  Allowing the courts this discretion will likely enhance the odds that a court will actually use such discretion to equitably allocate these expenses. If you have any questions about this new law, and how it could affect your situation or case, please contact our office at (309) 622-5084.  

--
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.

New Law Gives Parents in Bloomington Some New Tools

Governor Quinn has now signed a new law that will provide parents in Bloomington some significant remedies in pursuing child visitation interference. This new law would permit courts in McLean County to punish visitation interference about as severely as failure to pay child support.  

The Illinois State Bar Association fought hard against the bill, arguing that the bill was unconstitutional. Here is the actual language the new law:

 

(750 ILCS 5/607.1) (from Ch. 40, par. 607.1)

Sec. 607.1. Enforcement of visitation orders; visitation abuse.

(a) The circuit court shall provide an expedited procedure for enforcement of court ordered visitation in cases of visitation abuse. Visitation abuse occurs when a party has willfully and without justification: (1) denied another party visitation as set forth by the court; or (2) exercised his or her visitation rights in a manner that is harmful to the child or child's custodian.

(b) An Action may be commenced by filing a petition setting forth: (i) the petitioner's name, residence address or mailing address, and telephone number; (ii) respondent's name and place of residence, place of employment, or mailing address; (iii) the nature of the visitation abuse, giving dates and other relevant information; (iv) that a reasonable attempt was made to resolve the dispute; and (v) the relief sought.

Notice of the filing of the petitions shall be given as provided in Section 511.

(c) After hearing all of the evidence, the court may order one or more of the following: (1) Modification of the visitation order to specifically outline periods of visitation or restrict visitation as provided by law. (2) Supervised visitation with a third party or public agency. (3) Make up visitation of the same time period, such as weekend for weekend, holiday for holiday. (4) Counseling or mediation, except in cases where there is evidence of domestic violence, as defined in Section 1 of the Domestic Violence Shelters Act, occurring between the parties.  (5) Other appropriate relief deemed equitable.

(c-1) When the court issues an order holding a party in contempt for violation of a visitation order and finds that the party engaged in visitation abuse, the court may order one or more of the following:  (1) Suspension of a party's Illinois driving privileges pursuant to Section 7-703 of the Illinois Vehicle Code until the court determines that the party is in compliance with the visitation order. The court may also order that a party be issued a family financial responsibility driving permit that would allow limited driving privileges for employment, for medical purposes, and to transport a child to or from scheduled visitation in order to comply with a visitation order in accordance with subsection (a-1) of Section 7-702.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.  (2) Placement of a party on probation with such conditions of probation as the court deems advisable.  (3) Sentencing of a party to periodic imprisonment for a period not to exceed 6 months; provided, that the court may permit the party to be released for periods of time during the day or night to: (A) work; or  (B) conduct a business or other self-employed occupation.  (4) Find that a party in engaging in visitation abuse is guilty of a petty offense and should be fined an amount of no more than $500 for each finding of visitation abuse.

(d) Nothing contained in this Section shall be construed to limit the court's contempt power, except as provided in subsection (g) of this Section.

(e) When the court issues an order holding a party in contempt of court for violation of a visitation order, the clerk shall transmit a copy of the contempt order to the sheriff of the county. The sheriff shall furnish a copy of each contempt order to the Department of State Police on a daily basis in the form and manner required by the Department. The Department shall maintain a complete record and index of the contempt orders and make this data available to all local law enforcement agencies.

(f) Attorney fees and costs shall be assessed against a party if the court finds that the enforcement action is vexatious and constitutes harassment.

(g) A person convicted of unlawful visitation or parenting time interference under Section 10-5.5 of the Criminal Code of 1961 shall not be subject to the provisions of this Section and the court may not enter a contempt order for visitation abuse against any person for the same conduct for which the person was convicted of unlawful visitation interference or subject that person to the sanctions provided for in this Section.

(Source: P.A. 96-333, eff. 8-11-09; 96-675, eff. 8-25-09; 97-1047, eff. 8-21-12.)

 

To summarize, a custodial parent who interferes with the visitation of the non-custodial parent "willingly and without justification," can have her driver's license suspended, be fined, jailed for up to six months, forced to post bond, etc.  

One unique feature of the new law is that it requires McLean County to establish an "expedited procedure" for dealing with visitation interference.  It should stand to reason that the procedure will be as quick as the one for child support arrearages.  It's long been one of the most serious, though least noticed, problems non-custodial parents face – the time it takes to get a hearing.  It's certainly true when a downward modification of child support is sought, and it's true in the case of visitation interference as well.  Often as not, by the time the hearing rolls around, the matter has gotten out of hand; Dad may not have seen his kid in months.  So with an expedited procedure fathers in Bloomington can get into court quickly with the hope of swift, sure action being taken.

 

--
Jon D. McLaughlin
(309) 319-6206 

Sanford judge rules in favor of motorist who flashed his headlights

By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel


6:33 p.m. EST, May 22, 2012

A judge in Sanford ruled Tuesday that a Lake Mary man was lawfully
exercising his First Amendment rights when he flashed his headlights
to warn neighbors that a deputy had set up a speed trap nearby.

That decision is another victory for Ryan Kintner, 25, who sued
theSeminole County Sheriff's Officelast year, accusing it of
misconstruing a state law and violating his civil rights, principally
his right to free speech.

He was ticketed Aug. 10 by a Seminole County deputy, but Kintner
alleges the officer misapplied a state law designed to ban motorists
from flashing after-market emergency lights.

Circuit Judge Alan Dickey earlier ruled that that state law does not
apply to people who did what Kintner did, use his headlights to
communicate.

On Tuesday the judge went a step further, saying people who flash
their headlights to communicate are engaging in behavior protected by
the U.S. Constitution.

"He felt the police specificially went out of their way to silence Mr.
Kintner and that it was clearly a violation of his First Amendment
free speech rights," said his attorney, J. Marcus Jones of Oviedo.

Jones has filed a similar but much broader suit in Tallahassee against
the Florida Highway Patrol.

A hearing in that case is scheduled next month.

"This stuff is fun," Jones said after Tuesday's hearing.

Each suit asked that police agencies be ordered to halt writing those
tickets. The highway patrol stopped voluntarily, awaiting the outcome
of the suit. So have theSeminole County Sheriff's Officeand other
agencies.

In addition to Kintner's civil suit against the sheriff's office, he
also is fighting the ticket. It is still pending in county court in
Sanford.

The officer also ticketed him for running a stop sign, saying Kintner
had pulled beyond a stop bar before coming to a complete halt.

In an interview in August, shortly after filing suit, Kintner said, "I
felt an injustice was being done. … I have nothing against officers …
keeping speeding down, but when you cross a line and get into free
speech, I feel it's gone too far."

According to his suit, Kintner was home Aug. 10 when he saw a deputy
park along a street and pull out his radar gun. Kintner then got in
his car, drove a couple of blocks away, parked and pointed his vehicle
at oncoming traffic and began flashing his lights.

He was ticketed a short time later.


--
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.

Man who had 30 kids with 11 women wants child-support break -- LA TIMES

By Rene Lynch

1:30 PM PDT, May 18, 2012

 

You have to say this much for Desmond Hatchett: He has a way with the ladies.

The 33-year-old Knoxville, Tenn., resident has reportedly set a Knox County record for his ability to reproduce. He has 30 children with 11 women. And nine of those children were born in the last three years, after Hatchett -- who is something of a local celebrity -- vowed "I'm done!" in a 2009 TV interview, saying he wouldn't father more children.

But Hatchett is back in the news this week because he's struggling to make ends meet on his minimum-wage job. His inability to make child-support payments on such a meager salary also means he's back in court again and again, most recently to ask for a break on those payments.

"Yes, we've got several cases with Mr. Hatchett," Melissa Gibson, an assistant supervisor with the Knox County child support clerk's office, said with a sigh.

Hatchett's attorney, Keith Pope, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Under the law, there's nothing officials can do to force Hatchett to keep his pants on.

"If there's something out there like that, I'm unaware of it," Gibson told The Times, before adding, "It definitely needs to be."

Gibson said Hatchett is believed to hold the Knox County record for most children. (He'd hold a similar record in most counties in the U.S., which might explain why news of his predicament was pinging around the Internet on Friday.)

Gibson said she couldn't say whether any of his children receive public assistance. The youngest is a toddler; the oldest is 14. Asked in a TV interview whether he can "keep up with it all," Hatchett said he knows all their names, ages and birthdates.

Also in a TV interview, Hatchett tried to explain -- in a PG-rated way -- how he managed to end up with so many kids: "I had four kids in the same year. Twice."

When Hatchett is working, he is required to turn over 50% of his wages for child support -- the maximum allowed under law. Child support payments are based in part on the ages and needs of the children.

Some of the mothers of Hatchett's children get only $1.49 a month, reportedWREG in Memphis.

 

--
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.

Violence ages children's DNA, shortens their chromosomes

By Liz Szabo, USA TODAY

Conventional wisdom says that hardship can make us old before our time. In fact, a new study suggests that violence leaves longterm scars on children's bodies — not just in bruises on the skin, but also altering their DNA, causing changes that are equivalent to seven to 10 years of premature aging.

Scientists measured this cellular aging by studying the ends of children's chromosomes, called telomeres, according to Idan Shalev, lead author of a study in today's Molecular Psychiatry. Telomeres are special DNA sequences that act like the plastic tips on shoelaces, which prevent the DNA in chromosomes from unraveling. They get shorter each time a cell divides, until a cell can't divide anymore and it dies.

Several factors have been found to shorten telomeres, including smoking, radiation and psychological stresses such as early life maltreatment and taking care of a chronically ill person. In this study, researchers examined whether exposure to violence could make children's telomeres shorten faster than normal. They interviewed the mothers of 236 children at ages 5, 7 and 10, asking whether the youngsters had been exposed to domestic violence between the mother and her partner; physical maltreatment by an adult; or  bullying. Researchers measured the children's telomeres — in cells obtained by swabbing the insides of their cheeks — at ages 5 and 10.

Telomeres shortened faster in kids exposed to two or more types of violence, says Shalev, a post-doctoral researcher at the Duke Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy in Durham, N.C. Unless that pattern changes, the study suggests, these kids could be expected to develop diseases of aging, such as heart attacks or memory loss, seven to 10 years earlier than their peers. Shalev says there is hope for these kids. His study found that, in rare cases, telomeres can lengthen. Better nutrition, exercise and stress reduction are three things that may be able to lengthen telomeres, he says.

The study confirms a small-but-growing number of studies suggesting that early childhood adversity imprints itself in our chromosomes, says Charles Nelson, a professor of pediatrics and neuroscience at Harvard Medical School. In a 2011 study, Nelson and colleagues found shorter telomeres in Romanian children who had spent more time in institutions, compared with children sent to foster care.

"We know that toxic stress is bad for you," says Nathan Fox, a professor of human development at the University of Maryland and co-author of the 2011 paper. "This paper provides a mechanism by which this type of stress gets 'under the skin' and into the genes."

--
Jon D. McLaughlin

(309) 319-6206 

Mother faces contempt, jail for baptizing children

Mother faces contempt, jail for baptizing children

Published March 30, 2012 | Associated Press


A Shelby County mother faces contempt-of-court charges and possible jail time for baptizing her two children without the knowledge or consent of her ex-husband.

This week the Tennessee Court of Appeals said Lauren Jarrell must face a criminal contempt hearing for violating a court order that said major decisions regarding the religious upbringing of her two children should be made jointly with the children's father.

Both parents are Christian. Emmett Blake Jarrell, the father, is a member of the United Methodist Church, and she's a Presbyterian.

The father, according to court records, thought the children should be baptized when they are older and better able to understand the significance of the baptismal ceremony. The couple, according to court records, had even consulted a minister when they were married because they couldn't agree what age was best for the kids to be baptized. Records show the children will be 5 and 7 next month.

"Obviously she knew that the father did not want the children baptized at that age and she did that without telling him," Memphis attorney Any Amundsen, who is not involved in the case, said of the mother. "She violated the court order."

The Court of Appeals decision sides with the father, who had asked that his ex-wife be convicted of criminal contempt after discovering that she baptized the kids against his wishes.

A lower court has already found the mother in contempt of court. The appellate court decision overturned that decision and said criminal contempt proceedings are more appropriate because the mother can't undo the baptisms.

Legal experts disagree on whether the appellate court decision is treading into the forbidden territory of deciding spiritual doctrine or is just upholding the law when a parent is accused of flagrantly violating a court order.

The parents could not be reached for comment. Their attorneys did not return calls to The Associated Press.

Court records show that the mother argued that it was wrong for the lower court to find her in contempt it was tantamount to preferring the father's religious views on baptism over hers.

But the Court of Appeals disagreed.

"Mother is correct that courts `must maintain strict neutrality in cases involving religious disputes between divorced parents' and they may not `prefer the religious views of one parent over another unless one parent's religious beliefs and practices threaten the health and well-being of the child," Judge Alan E. Highers wrote. "However, simply put, this is not a religious dispute." Highers said the court is only being asked to determine whether the mother can be found in contempt for failing to follow the court order.

Nashville attorney Helen Rogers says the courts ought to stay away from these kinds of decisions.

"How would a court decide between baptizing a Presbyterian and a Methodist or a Catholic," Rogers asked. She wondered whether a court could step in and order the child of a Muslim and a Jew to attend a synagogue or a mosque. The problem, she said, is that the standard parenting plan in Tennessee orders many parents to mediation if they can't jointly decide on major decisions involving religious upbringing. If they can't agree even after mediation, she said, it ultimately means that a court has to decide.

"The bigger kind of global look at this is should religious decision-making be a private matter or should it be something that a court orders to begin with," Rogers asked.

However, Amundsen said the courts are only following state law, which says the courts have to consider religious upbringing when it comes to parental decision making.

Both attorneys said it's not unusual for parents to disagree on religious upbringing.

If the mother is convicted, she could face up to 20 days in jail and a $100 fine.

--
Jon D. McLaughlin -- Bloomington Illinois Divorce Attorney

Allison & Mosby-Scott
(309) 319-6206