Supervised Visitation
Supervised visitation is only appropriate where a parent poses a severe threat or
harm to a child.
A Sampling of Cases on Restriction of Visitation:
T.M., In re, 706 N.E.2d 931, 302 Ill.App.3d 33, 236 Ill.Dec. 57 (Ill. App. 1 Dist., 1998)
(Sexual assault/fondling and alcoholism by step father)
In re Marriage of Chehaiber, 334 Ill. Dec. 408 (2nd Dist. 2009):
“A court shall not restrict a parent’s visitation rights unless it finds that the visitation would endanger seriously the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.” 750 ILCS 5/607(c) (West 2008)
A parent, by statute, is entitled to a hearing before visitation is restricted in any manner.
In re Marriage of Anderson, 130 Ill. App. 3d 684 (2nd Dist. 1985)
With respect to the restriction of visitation, the endangerment standard is an
onerous one (In re Marriage of Hanson (1983), 112 Ill.App.3d 564 , 568, 68 Ill.Dec. 268 ,
445 N.E.2d 912 ; In re Marriage of Neat (1981), 101 Ill.App.3d 1046 1048, 57 Ill.Dec.
413 , 428 N.E.2d 1093 ), and is more stringent or exacting than the best interest standard
( 84 Ill.App.3d 901 , 907, 40 Ill.Dec. 197 , 405 N.E.2d 1289 ; Ill.Ann.Stat. ch. 40, par.
607(c), Supplement to Historical and Practice Notes, at 27 (Smith-Hurd Supp.1983);
see 101 Ill.App.3d 1046 1048, 57 Ill.Dec. 413 , 428 N.E.2d 1093 ).

Where the custodial parent seeks to restrict visitation rights, he or she bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the existing visitation seriously endangers the child.
(Griffiths v. Griffiths (1984), 127 Ill.App.3d 126 , 129, 82 Ill.Dec. 220 , 468 N.E.2d 482 ; 101
Ill.App.3d 1046 1048, 57 Ill.Dec. 413 , 428 N.E.2d 1093 ). It should be noted that there
were allegations of sexual abuse by the father.
The August 10 order clearly restricted the respondent’s visitation with Marc. The
trial court did not make the requisite finding that the visitation would seriously endanger Marc’s physical, mental, moral or emotional health (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 40, par. 607(c)), but rather found that the restriction in visitation was in “the best interests of the minor child”. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in restricting the
respondent’s visitation rights. See In re Marriage of Solomon (1980), 84 Ill.App.3d 901 ,
907, 40 Ill.Dec. 197 , 405 N.E.2d 1289 ;

Pleasant v. Pleasant, 256 Ill. App. 3d 742 (1st Dist. 1993)
Allegations of sexual abuse.
In re Marriage of Lombaer, 200 Ill. App.3d 712 (1’1 Dist. 1990)
Mother being in hospital and refusing to take medication insufficient to restrict her
visitation.
The standards within section 602 provide that the court shall determine custody
in [200 Ill.App.3d 723] accordance with the best interest of the child giving
consideration to:
(1) the wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to his custody;
(2) the wishes of the child as to his custodian;
(3) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parent or parents, his
siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best
interest;
(4) the child’s adjustment to his home, school and community;
(5) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; and
(6) the physical violence or threat of physical violence by the child’s potential
custodian, whether directed against the child or directed against another person
but witnessed by the child.

In re Marriage of Neat, 428 N.E.2d 1093, 101 Ill.App.3d 1046, 57 Ill.Dec. 413 (Ill.
App. 1 Dist., 1981)
Mother’s demeanor in court (swaying, glazed eyes) insufficient to restrict or terminate
visitatin. “(c)ourts are reluctant to deny all visitation rights because of the underlying rationale that parents have a natural or inherent right of access to their children and that the sound public policy of this State encourages the [101 Ill.App.3d 1049] maintenance of strong inter-family relationships, even in post-divorce situations. Only very extreme circumstances require and allow the trial court to permanently deprive a parent of visitation.” 54 Ill.App.3d at 1015, 12 Ill.Dec. 680 , 370 N.E.2d 303 .
In re Marriage of Lee, 615 N.E.2d 1314, 246 Ill.App.3d 628, 186 Ill.Dec. 257 (Ill. App.
4 Dist., 1993 )
Both parties violent. Custody awarded to mother. Father awarded reasonable visitation.
Taraboletti v. Taraboletti, 56 Ill. App. 3d 854, 14 Ill. Dec. 350, 372 N.E.2d 155 (1978)
Termination of visitation rights: The testimony at the trial on the merits in the original
divorce produced the following facts: That the defendant had threatened to kill her
daughter, Carla, on a number of occasions; that defendant threatened to push her
daughter, Carla, down a flight of steps; that defendant threatened to kill her husband,
the plaintiff, and had struck him at various times; that defendant had tried to strike
plaintiff and plaintiff’s mother with an automobile; that plaintiff was fearful for the
children’s safety when they were with the defendant; and that the defendant did not
rebut any of this evidence against her. At the proceeding on the defendant’s petition to
change custody from plaintiff to herself, the following evidence was presented:
defendant had chased the plaintiff with a pan of boiling water while the children were
present; that defendant had struck plaintiff’s car with a garden rake while the children
were present; that during a confrontation, one of the minor children, David, age 10,
warned his father that the defendant was going to “kick him in the crotch”, that
defendant did strike plaintiff below the belt while the children were present and that
police assistance was required; that on another occasion defendant struck the plaintiff,
knocking off his glasses, and ripping his shirt,… Holding: visitation terminated for
defendant. Affirmed.

From Joanne;

I am publishing this because I am getting  a lot of complaints that parties are losing custody based on the following: child not attending day care (shouldn’t a pre school kid be with a parent while the other one works?  this isn’t school, it’s preschool); mother gets supervised visitation with a supervisor at $50 per hour when she makes minimum wage, which means the court has basically told her no visitation. What is wrong with these judges? and the GALs seem to be behind all of the problems.