Illinois Petition To Modify: Fill & Download for Free

The best answer as to how, and the only good opinion as to whether this is advisable, is going to come from a lawyer in Illinois who is familiar with the court which issued the order. Legal procedure isn’t, inherently, a simple DIY type process. I am not a lawyer in Illinois and nothing here can be legal advice or a reasonable substitute for the same. But since I was asked to answer:Custody orders are supposed to be entered after considering the best interests of the child(ren) involved. To this end, custody orders can generally be modified (in any jurisdiction) for a change in circumstances, but it looks like Illinois has this provision in its statutes:(a) Unless by stipulation of the parties or except as provided in Section 603.10 of this Act, no motion to modify an order allocating parental decision-making responsibilities, not including parenting time, may be made earlier than 2 years after its date, unless the court permits it to be made on the basis of affidavits that there is reason to believe the child's present environment may endanger seriously his or her mental, moral, or physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development. Parenting time may be modified at any time, without a showing of serious endangerment, upon a showing of changed circumstances that necessitates modification to serve the best interests of the child.750 Ill.C.S. § 5/610.5. A petition to modify a standing custody order must generally be presented to the same court that issued it. UCCJEA § 202, 750 Ill.C.S. § 36/202, see also § 5/601.2. There are surely local court rules that need to be complied with regarding form of papers.While family law is intensely local in character (my law school professor aptly summed it up as “the first and last rule in family law is ‘know the judge’”), in my experience, courts are aggravated by litigants who move to modify custody orders immediately or without adequate cause. Repeated litigation is not only a waste of court time but stressful on the parties and children involved.Recently, many judges have come around to the notion that substantially shared physical custody is an ideal arrangement because it affords something like equal time to each parent, so in order to overturn such an arrangement, you might have to come in and make an affirmative demonstration that the child isn’t being properly looked after at the other parent’s house. Another possible ground would be that the parties live too far apart for the child to attend school conveniently. But all of that is a matter for you to discuss, in confidence, with your lawyer.

The South was negotiating to end Slavery during the Civil War. But the North offered no humane alternative. No Party consided what was best for Blacks until Lee's win streak.H. Ford Douglas, a black man and a radical abolitionist living in Illinois, saw Lincoln as an advocate of white supremacy and an opponent of equality for African Americans. On July 4, 1860 he made a speech at Framingham, Massachusetts to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. In that speech he exposes the Republican nominee’s views on race and slavery. Here are some interesting excerpts:“John Quincy Adams said, twenty years ago, that ‘the preservation, propagation and perpetuation of slavery is the vital animating spirit of the national government,’ and this truth is not less apparent today. Every department of our national life—the President’s chair, the Senate of the United States, the Supreme Court, and the American pulpit—is occupied and controlled by the dark spirit of American slavery...We have four parties in this country that have marshaled themselves on the highway of American politics, asking for the votes of the American people to place them in possession of the government... All of these parties ask for your support, because they profess to represent some principle. So far as the principles of freedom and the hopes of the black man are concerned, all these parties are barren and unfruitful; neither of them seeks to lift the Negro out of his fetters and rescue this day from odium and disgrace.Take Abraham Lincoln. I want to know if any man can tell me the difference between the antislavery of Abraham Lincoln and the antislavery of the old Whig party or the antislavery of Henry Clay? Why, there is no difference between them. Abraham Lincoln is simply a Henry Clay Whig, and he believes just as Henry Clay believed in regard to this question... Henry Clay once said ‘That is property which the law declares to be property,’ and that ‘two hundred years of legislation have sanctioned and sanctified property in slaves.’ Wherever Henry Clay is today in the universe of God, that atheistic lie is with him, with all its tormenting memories.I do not believe in the antislavery of Abraham Lincoln, because he is on the side of this slave power of which I am speaking, that has possession of the federal government... What did he say at Freeport, that the South was entitled to a Fugitive Slave Law; and although he thought the law could be modified a little, yet, he said, if he was in Congress, he would have it done in such a way as not to lessen its efficiency... and the man whose name is inscribed upon the Presidential banner of the Republican party is in favor of keeping it upon the statute book!In the state of Illinois, where I live—my adopted state—I have been laboring to make it a place fit for a decent man to live in. In that state, we have a code of black laws that would disgrace any Barbary State, or any uncivilized people in the far-off islands of the sea. Men of my complexion are not allowed to testify in a court of justice where a white man is a party. If a white man happens to owe me anything, unless I can prove it by the testimony of a white man, I cannot collect the debt. Now, two years ago, I went through the state of Illinois for the purpose of getting signers to a petition asking the legislature to repeal the ’Testimony Law,’ so as to permit colored men to testify against white men. I went to prominent Republicans, and among others, to Abraham Lincoln and Lyman Trumbull, and neither of them dared to sign that petition, to give me the right to testify in a court of justice!The state lays its iron hand upon the Negro, holds him down, and puts the other hand into his pocket and steals his hard earnings, to educate the children of white men; and if we sent our children to school, Abraham Lincoln would kick them out, in the name of Republicanism and antislavery!”

Segregated. The Northwest modeled its’ State Constructions on Illinois. H. Ford Douglas, a black man and a radical abolitionist living in Illinois, saw Lincoln as an advocate of white supremacy and an opponent of equality for African Americans. On July 4, 1860 he made a speech at Framingham, Massachusetts to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. In that speech he exposes the Republican nominee’s views on race and slavery. Here are some interesting excerpts:“John Quincy Adams said, twenty years ago, that ‘the preservation, propagation and perpetuation of slavery is the vital animating spirit of the national government,’ and this truth is not less apparent today. Every department of our national life—the President’s chair, the Senate of the United States, the Supreme Court, and the American pulpit—is occupied and controlled by the dark spirit of American slavery...We have four parties in this country that have marshaled themselves on the highway of American politics, asking for the votes of the American people to place them in possession of the government... All of these parties ask for your support, because they profess to represent some principle. So far as the principles of freedom and the hopes of the black man are concerned, all these parties are barren and unfruitful; neither of them seeks to lift the Negro out of his fetters and rescue this day from odium and disgrace.Take Abraham Lincoln. I want to know if any man can tell me the difference between the antislavery of Abraham Lincoln and the antislavery of the old Whig party or the antislavery of Henry Clay? Why, there is no difference between them. Abraham Lincoln is simply a Henry Clay Whig, and he believes just as Henry Clay believed in regard to this question... Henry Clay once said ‘That is property which the law declares to be property,’ and that ‘two hundred years of legislation have sanctioned and sanctified property in slaves.’ Wherever Henry Clay is today in the universe of God, that atheistic lie is with him, with all its tormenting memories.I do not believe in the antislavery of Abraham Lincoln, because he is on the side of this slave power of which I am speaking, that has possession of the federal government... What did he say at Freeport, that the South was entitled to a Fugitive Slave Law; and although he thought the law could be modified a little, yet, he said, if he was in Congress, he would have it done in such a way as not to lessen its efficiency... and the man whose name is inscribed upon the Presidential banner of the Republican party is in favor of keeping it upon the statute book!In the state of Illinois, where I live—my adopted state—I have been laboring to make it a place fit for a decent man to live in. In that state, we have a code of black laws that would disgrace any Barbary State, or any uncivilized people in the far-off islands of the sea. Men of my complexion are not allowed to testify in a court of justice where a white man is a party. If a white man happens to owe me anything, unless I can prove it by the testimony of a white man, I cannot collect the debt. Now, two years ago, I went through the state of Illinois for the purpose of getting signers to a petition asking the legislature to repeal the ’Testimony Law,’ so as to permit colored men to testify against white men. I went to prominent Republicans, and among others, to Abraham Lincoln and Lyman Trumbull, and neither of them dared to sign that petition, to give me the right to testify in a court of justice!The state lays its iron hand upon the Negro, holds him down, and puts the other hand into his pocket and steals his hard earnings, to educate the children of white men; and if we sent our children to school, Abraham Lincoln would kick them out, in the name of Republicanism and antislavery!”