Visitation Interference Penalties Tightened

Summary#

HB 5821, titled “Unlawful Visitation Interference,” would amend Illinois’s Criminal Code of 2012. It would change penalties for unlawfully interfering with court-ordered visitation, parenting time, or custody time; the bill does not state a broader goal. It is introduced and is not law.

  • A person commits the offense by detaining or concealing a child, contrary to a court order, intending to deprive another person of visitation, parenting time, or custody time.
  • A first or second violation would be a petty offense punishable by a $500 fine.
  • The offense would be a Class 4 felony if the person has at least two prior convictions for it, or if the child was taken out of Illinois in violation of a court order.
  • The bill includes no change to the existing notice-to-appear procedure or listed affirmative defenses (legal grounds a defendant may raise).

What it means for you#

  • Parents and other people with court-ordered time with a child: The bill would raise the potential penalty in the listed repeat-offense and out-of-state-removal situations. It does not change anyone’s custody or visitation rights or create a process for changing court orders.
  • People accused of the offense: The bill lists defenses for acts meant to protect a child from imminent physical harm, acts agreed to by everyone with custody or visitation rights, and acts otherwise authorized by law.
  • Law enforcement: An officer with probable cause must issue a notice to appear under the text supplied. The bill does not describe this as a new duty.
  • Courts: They would handle the cases and penalties under the amended law; the bill does not set out a new court process.

Money#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill sets a $500 fine for a first or second violation. It gives no estimate of revenue, court costs, or other public costs.
  • The bill provides no cost estimate for implementing the proposed penalties.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied penalty text is internally inconsistent: after the proposed penalties, it also includes older language describing a petty offense and a Class A misdemeanor after two prior convictions. The current Criminal Code was not supplied, so the exact current penalties and the full effect of the amendment could not be verified.
  • The bill does not give an effective date.
  • It does not explain how prior convictions would be counted or how the felony penalty would be applied in a particular case.
  • The bill refers to definitions in another Criminal Code section, but that section was not supplied.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that repeat violations would carry a more serious penalty, including a felony for people with at least two prior convictions.
  • The bill also treats taking a child out of Illinois in violation of a court order as a felony trigger, even without prior convictions.
  • The bill keeps the listed defenses for acts intended to protect a child or otherwise authorized by law.

Case against#

  • A possible concern is that taking a child out of Illinois in violation of a court order would trigger a felony even if the person has no prior convictions.
  • The bill does not distinguish among different circumstances of out-of-state removal; the text makes the violation of a court order the trigger.
  • The inconsistent penalty text makes it difficult to determine exactly how the proposal would change current penalties without checking the current law.