Many people have heard about a new “right of first refusal” provision that is taking effect on January 14, 2014. As an Illinois child custody lawyer, I find parents are often concerned about this issue. Too bad the new right of first refusal provision is a failure.
I wrote this article to provide a basic explanation of the law, and some commentary.
Long story short: the statute has no teeth and doesn’t go far enough in creating and protecting the right of first refusal in child custody and visitation situations.
An illusion of progress
The statutory provision at issue is Section 602.3 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (the “IMDMA”).
The statute states that “if the court awards joint custody . . . or visitation . . . the court may 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, unless the need for child care is attributable to an emergency.”
What does all that mean?
Even in cases of joint custody, the court is not required to consider the right of first refusal, but it “may” do so.
Is it not human nature to avoid work one is not required to do?
How common do you think it will be for the courts to seriously consider the right of first refusal? Let me give you a few hints. Courts are crowded. Litigation is expensive, and time-consuming. Courts don’t consider anything without litigation. Therefore, the right of first refusal will not seriously come into play as much as many would hope.
The statute is horrible. Judges are required to make custody and visitation decisions based on the “best interests” of a child. Shouldn’t it be implied that the a best interest determination mandates consideration of the right of first refusal?
The right of first refusal should be regarded as so fundamental that it should be automatically granted absent a showing of impracticability or possible harm to a child.
What is the right of first refusal?
The statute defines the right of first refusal to mean that “if a party intends to leave the minor child or children with a substitute child-care provider for a significant period of time, that party must first offer the other party an opportunity to personally care for the minor child or children. ”
By the way, parents can always agree to the right of first refusal, as I state in my earlier article “Parenting time: the right of first refusal.”
What if the court grants the right of first refusal?
If the court grants the right of first refusal, the order shall contain:
- the length and kind of child-care requirements invoking the right of first refusal;
- notification to the other parent and for his or her response;
- transportation requirements; and
- any other action necessary to protect and promote the best interest of the minor child or children.
What to do?
If you are concerned about the right of first refusal for your custody or visitation case, you should be. But the other parent may do everything possible to gain power and deprive you of a proper relationship with your children. You can either accept defeat, or fight for what you believe in. Complaining about the law, as I have done in this article, will get you nowhere.
I think this new statute will be near worthless, but I hope I’m wrong.