GUILTY Bali - Sheila von Wiese Mack, 62, found dead in suitcase, 12 Aug 2014 #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #1,901
I believe she does based on her Instagram photos and TS's comments in the infamous letter. The GAL in Chicago was suppose to be coordinating care for Stella, so, I'm sure HM is benefiting there. I had not thought about the kickbacks from Ary. Makes sense though. But, she is much better off than what we have read about other prisoners.

There is story after story that you can get anything you want in the prison systems there in Bali - (but corruption is rampant in all prison systems).
HM would have money there - and if that's not enough, she would use her sense of 'entitlement' to manipulate others to see that she gets what she wants if it is not given to her.
She will get worse, not better, in jail.

Feb 2017
Bali Police officer under investigation, accused of passing off meth to prisoner
https://coconuts.co/bali/news/bali-police-officer-investigation-accused-passing-off-meth-prisoner/

Nov 2016
Bali prison security thwarts meth smuggling attempt, powder hidden in cig pack
https://coconuts.co/bali/news/bali-...eth-smuggling-attempt-powder-hidden-cig-pack/

Sweep of Kerobokan Prison turns up the usual stuff: drugs, weapons, tools
https://coconuts.co/bali/news/sweep-kerobokan-prison-turns-usual-stuff-drugs-weapons-tools/

2015
2 kids caught smuggling meth into Kerobokan Prison in rice packets
https://coconuts.co/bali/news/2-kids-caught-smuggling-meth-kerobokan-prison-rice-packets/
 
  • #1,902
Yeah, sorry I may have used the wrong term for her biokids. My bad. And I was describing my take on why the higher court had a different view on things nothing more. I never said I was a lawyer. Cheers! [emoji477]


Sorry watergirl, I've been sick for several days (still am). I spend more time asleep than awake and both these periods are strange and unpredictable amounts of time.

So I was inexcusably cranky when I challenged your account of "Mueller" and I apologize.

One of my disagreements with how you characterize "Mueller" is this: it's not true that it was a whole different ball game when the case reached the appeals court. His murdering wife got out of prison while the first trial over the money was still going on!

(And I think Cohen can't get off the pot.)

Rather than being rude to you, I should have thanked you. I now believe the trial court judge (that case's equivalent of Cohen), was so shocked that the Mueller murderer would so easily benefit from the estate through her minor child that he did something.

What I didn't notice as important before, but see now (thanks to you), is that this Judge specifically asked the appeals court to rule on that question I've been harping about:

If the Slayer is not allowed to benefit from the will, can the alternate beneficiaries inherit if they are the Slayer's children and not the children of the victim?

I think that the "Mueller" trial judge wished he could rule against the murderer's sons inheriting, but didn't think the Illinois Slayer Statute allowed it. But why not ask the appeals court? So he did. The appeal ruling specifically says it is answering that question put to them by the trial court (not the appealing parties). The appeals court writes at the beginning of their decision: "The trial court certified the following question of law to the appellate court..." But, as always, I could be wrong and maybe the lower court didn't really care and it is their job to summarize the appeal issues for the higher court.

The appeals ruling in "Mueller" has had the effect that courts can look at how the money might go back to the murderer. That's the good side. The bad side I've already discussed. And "Opalinska" seems to overturn or greatly narrow "Mueller".
 
  • #1,903
Orange Tabby, if HM were tried and convicted of a conspiracy charge (like TS's cousin, RB), would that charge be enough to trigger the 'slayer statute'?


I never thought of that question and can't reply with anything useful. If something occurs to me, I'll post.

But I do think that if Cohen can ever get a proper Slayer Statute hearing started in his court, then we won't have to wait for Heather to be hauled before the Feds and get the long, hard sentence she justly deserves.

That is, I still believe Heather will be formally stripped of all right to her mother's money before a conspiracy charge is leveled against her, circa 2025. The evidence is vast, devastating, and available. It merely waits for Cohen to let it appear on the record in Cook County.

If Heather's Fifth Amendment ploy should derail a Slayer hearing, I actually think Cohen will refuse to let her benefit from the trust and will leave it in limbo, for years if needed. But Cohen is an odd duck, so who knows?
 
  • #1,904
Sorry watergirl, I've been sick for several days (still am). I spend more time asleep than awake and both these periods are strange and unpredictable amounts of time.

Thanks. We all get cranky, Orange Tabby. Hope you feel better soon. We need you well to help us figure out this huge mess.

* leaves some hot tea, soup, kleenex, fluffy socks and a blanket*






Sent from my LG-H740 using Tapatalk
 
  • #1,905
Hello and thx to all for the discussion & thoughtful analysis here. Rejoining thread now, I've forgotten many details from early on*, so pls accept apologies for questions.

Q1. Has Stella been issued a passport,** which would be req'ed to leave country and/or enter US?

Q2. Has a CRBA re her birth been issued, per below?
IIUC, boyfriend/bio-father's mother, e.g., Stella's paternal grandmother, petitioned for custody/guardianship of Stella in ongoing trust proceeding in IL ct, but judge refused to permit, prompting her atty to say he would refile petition in approp ct.
May seem off topic, but azz-uming...

Q3 ....someone here in US (for ex, Stella's paternal g'ma), is granted custody of Stella while she is in Bali w parents in prison, how could that someone go to Bali and return to US w her ---UNLESS HM and/or Stella's bio-father would already have acquired US passport for her? And would willingly provide passport to that someone?

Q4. ... short of that someone filing a petition in Bali ct asking Bali ct to recognize the US ct order giving that someone?

Q5 Does someone (e.g., paternal g'ma or anyone) have $$$ to pay for travel, legal services, etc.^ which would be incurred in both US & Bali?

Anyone? I may be barking up the wrong tree w this line of thought. TiA.

____________________________________________________________________________________________
"A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.
According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.
By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States
." bbm
^ https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html


__________________________________________________________________________________
* Starting w SVM's death, I followed case until shortly before trial, but not since, until last night when I read Feb 20, 21, 22, posts in this thread. Waaaaaaaay back, I posted re IL. slayer statute & jmo how it might/might not be applied re distrib of trust - who gets $$$, when. Room for lots of confusion & complications.)
 
  • #1,906
A poster (sorry, forgot who) recently raised possibility of tax questions.

IIUC, SVM died in summer 2014, and her trust-titled prop's value was ~ $1.5 million then.

If SVM's 'taxable estate' value for fed est tax purposes was $1.5 mil at time of her 2014 death, no fed estate tax would be assessed, per below in blue ital. It's possible SVM's estate* was subject to fed est tax, but from what I've read, doubtful, imo. Thankfully, most of us do not have to worry about fed est tax liability (until we buy the winning powerball ticket. LOL. Now where's my lucky 4-leafed clover?)

____________________________________________________________________

* Overly-simplified: If 1.5 mil, no fed est tax.
But if SVM had owned -
--- other property titled or registered in her name (e.g., real estate, such as condo, apts, rental houses, strip malls; bank a/c, brokerage a/c, stocks, annuities, mutual funds, bonds; IRA, Roth IRA, 401(k); certain life ins policies on her life, etc.), and/or
--- other non-registered/non-titled prop (e.g., diamonds, gemstones, silver coins, gold bullion, stamp collections, etc)then the values of those other prop's are added to the trust-titled prop to calculate 'gross estate' value for fed est tax.

Then certain deductions (e.g., funeral expenses, certain charitable contributions, certain prop. left to surviving spouse which SVM did not have) are made to calculate her 'taxable estate' for fed est tax purposes. If fed taxable est $ figure was < $ 5,340,000, then still no fed est tax liabiity.
If figure was (hypothetical) $ 6,000,000, then fed est tax would be assessed on $ 660,000 (at a certain % rate). That % rate for fed est tax is not calculated on the entire (hypothetical) $6,000,000.

Now, time for tax wizards to swoop in, wave their wands, and say ^ is misinformation, and correct me. If so, pls do.

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
* ".... up to a certain amount varying year by year can be given by an individual, before and/or upon their death, without incurring federal gift or estate taxes:[SUP][2][/SUP] $5,340,000 for estates of persons dying in 2014,...."

The "gross estate" for federal estate tax purposes often includes more property than that included in the "probate estate" under the property laws of the state in which the decedent lived at the time of death. The gross estate (before the modifications) may be considered to be the value of all the property interests of the decedent at the time of death.
".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States.
 
  • #1,907
A poster (sorry, forgot who) recently raised possibility of tax questions.

IIUC, SVM died in summer 2014, and her trust-titled prop's value was ~ $1.5 million then.


SBM

Good to see you back here, al66pine!

From time to time, since Sheila's murder, there have been discussions here which have centered around the fact that Sheila had both a will and a trust. A few years back there were one or two or three people (or more?) who suggested that maybe we didn't know all there was to know about Sheila's assets and all her intentions for them upon her death.

I assume these things (some with more evidence than others):

--At the time she died, the overwhelming balance of Sheila's assets, including her Gold Coast condo, were held in her trust.

--Her will governed only a tiny fraction of her assets, such as her checking account.

--Her will did one thing only: move that tiny fraction of her assets into the trust.

--The original value of the trust reported in the press (approx $1.56 million in 2014) represents everything Sheila had.

--Her trustee has acted appropriately with respect to all fees and taxes.

So based on your detailed account of federal tax liability, I can't see any federal taxes owing.

Heather, who it seems murdered her mother expecting a far bigger payday than a trust with a balance that doesn't even include an "s" on the word "million," undoubtedly wishes my assumptions to be wrong.

Do you think there are assets we don't know about?
 
  • #1,908
My comments in blue, with much of your post respectfully snipped.

...
Good to see you back here, al66pine!
^ Thank you vey much.

--Her will did one thing only: move that tiny fraction of her assets into the trust.....
Agreeing w ^ (probably).
(Sometimes called a 'pourover will. Often most of a testator's assets have been transferred to trust/ retitled in trust name while testator is still living. Sometimes at time of death, there are no (or only a few) assets subject to probate. Sometimes a testator/trust-setttlor overlooks existing prop or forgets to have newly acquired assets registered in trust name.)

Heather, who it seems murdered her mother expecting a far bigger payday than a trust with a balance that doesn't even include an "s" on the word "million," undoubtedly wishes my assumptions to be wrong.
^ Agreeing, sometimes teens do not have any sense of money or privilege they are living with.

Do you think there are assets we don't know about?
IDK, could be.
First, JME thru past employment: sometimes ppl who want to transfer (e.g., single name) prop or a/c's to a newly estab'ed trust, sign paperwork to make transfers, but the banks, brokerages, etc. are slow to do so. Sometimes the re-titling is delayed because the financial institution requires a/c holders to sign their own proprietary documents (such as Bk of Am forms or Merrill Lynch forms).
IIRC, SVM established trust only a month or so before Bali trip, so it's possible all the assets (she wanted to be in trust name) did not get re-titled into trust name before her death.
Second, it's poss SVM owned prop (say as joint tenants w right of survivorship, e.g., {hypothetical} her cousin) and on her death her interest in that prop or a/c, would become the cousin's prop entirely. So that would not go thru probate and we might not know about it. Presumably HM would not have claim to such prop.
Third, it's poss SVM owned some untitled or unregistered property (e.g., jewelry, gold bullion, stamp collection) that may or may not end up going thru probate. May or may not have been referenced in trust's schedule of property. Conceivably, may be a safety deposit box. May be included in probate proceeding. IDK.

All ^ just possibilities, not saying any have factual basis in SVM case.

JM2cts, could be wrong.
 
  • #1,909
Quick questions:

Any link to a pdf of SVM's trust document itself?

Any link to a pdf of SVM's will?

Thx in adv.
 
  • #1,910
Quick questions:

Any link to a pdf of SVM's trust document itself?

Any link to a pdf of SVM's will?

Thx in adv.

Not sure I've seen one.
I do remember the house was sold not that long after SVWM's death by WW.
 
  • #1,911
Yesterday I posted, wondering about passport; custody of Stella.I've not reviewed these links fully but will park them here, for anyone who wants to read up now, re possible application to situation.
- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - --- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - --
http://uniformlaws.org/ActSummary.aspx?title=Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
one page summary of uniform act.

http://uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
has link to full text of ^ uniform act (see tab for "View Final Act 1997")

http://uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

http://uniformlaws.org/LegislativeMap.aspx?title=Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
(per map, all US states have adopted ^ uniform act)

^^^^^ re laws poss'ly applicable re paternal grandmother's petition to be granted custody of Stella.^^^^^
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --


So, per prison regs, at age 2 y/o, Stella may be 'evicted' from prison? That comes up next month in March?
Will Stella be automatically placed into Bali's system of foster care? Or adoption?
Or can she be placed in accord w bio-mom and/or bio-dad's wishes???
If mom and/or dad are allowed to place her w someone of their choice, will that placement require Bali ct-approval?
After either of ^, will someone be able to take Stella to visit mom & dad?

Paternal-g'mother's petition filed in IL seems unlikely to me to result in IL ct order granting custody of Stella. JM2cts.
If IL ct issues such a ruling, there are still further legal issues as well (mentioned in my earlier post).
And part of that would hinge on Bali's recognition of that (hypothetical) IL ct's ruling/order re Stella's custody.


Bar assn article re "International Child Custody Cases" focusesprimarily on parental abduction cases.
https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/oct99cro.html.

Kinda rambling now, so need to search further. Sorry if ^ has already been extensively discussed,
 
  • #1,912
RSBM... :)

al66pine, I cant get these links to work - saying page not found :)


Yesterday I posted, wondering about passport; custody of Stella.I've not reviewed these links fully but will park them here, for anyone who wants to read up now, re possible application to situation.
- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - --- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - --
http://uniformlaws.org/ActSummary.aspx?title=Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
one page summary of uniform act.

http://uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
has link to full text of ^ uniform act (see tab for "View Final Act 1997")

http://uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

http://uniformlaws.org/LegislativeMap.aspx?title=Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
(per map, all US states have adopted ^ uniform act)

^^^^^ re laws poss'ly applicable re paternal grandmother's petition to be granted custody of Stella.^^^^^
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
 
  • #1,913
RSBM... :)
al66pine, I cant get these links to work - saying page not found :)
Fig Tree
My apologies for bad links. And for not responding sooner. This should get you on the right track.

http://uniformlaws.org/ home page for Uniform Laws Commission
You can pretty much start here to find navigate to pages I mentioned.

There's a tab for "Laws." Click on it.
http://uniformlaws.org/Acts.aspx

Drop down menu has "Find a Law." <--- Click.
Page 1 starts the list of uni. laws.
At bottom of list is "Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act." <--- Click. With comments, it's 73 pages.

More choices on that page:

Box Header: "Description:"
"This Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act limits the state with jurisdiction over child custody to one, which avoids competing orders. The Act also provides enforcement provisions for child custody orders."

Box Header: View Final Act.
"Final Act 1997" <--- Click


Box Header: "Legislative Information Kit"
"Act Summary"
"Why States Should Adopt UCCJEA"

Again sorry to misdirect you (and any others who tried).
 
  • #1,914
A quick note re paternal-g'mother's petition for custody and likelihood of IL ct granting it. Stella has never been in IL

See "Initial child custody jurisdiction" per UCCJEA, on page 23 of http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/child_custody_jurisdiction/uccjea_final_97.pdf

"[ARTICLE] 2 JURISDICTION
SECTION 201. INITIAL CHILD-CUSTODY JURISDICTION.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 204, a court of this State has
jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination only if:
(1) this State is the home State of the child on the date of the
commencement of the proceeding
, or was the home State of the child within six
months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from
this State but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State
;...."

In previous post about likelihood of successful outcome for pat-g'mother , just using intuition, I doubted it.
^ section suggests imo, unlikely that IL ct would find that it has jurisdiction to consider petition for custody of Stella.

Tomorrow evening, I'll pull the section numbers of IL law and link it.
JM2cts, could be all wrong.
 
  • #1,915
A quick note re paternal-g'mother's petition for custody and likelihood of IL ct granting it. Stella has never been in IL

See "Initial child custody jurisdiction" per UCCJEA, on page 23 of http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/child_custody_jurisdiction/uccjea_final_97.pdf

SBM

Hi al66pine,

The title page of the document you quote looks like this:

UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (1997)

Drafted by the

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS

and by it

APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES

...

http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/child_custody_jurisdiction/uccjea_final_97.pdf

Note my bold: at the time the document you quote was published it clearly was intended for enactment but not yet enacted.

Do you know for a fact that Illinois has enacted this legislation? Moreover, do you know it has done so without amendment? I've had a very quick look-see and have observed that the drafters note that their previous draft legislation was not always fully taken on by the states.
 
  • #1,916
Snipped by Orange Tabby...

Box Header: "Legislative Information Kit"
"Act Summary"
"Why States Should Adopt UCCJEA"

"Why States Should Adopt UCCJEA" also makes clear this is proposed legislation.

Your upcoming post on actual Illinois legislation will be more helpful, I think.
 
  • #1,917
....The title page of the document you quote looks like this:
APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES
http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/child_custody_jurisdiction/uccjea_final_97.pdf
Note my bold: at the time the document you quote was published it clearly was intended for enactment but not yet enacted.

Do you know for a fact that Illinois has enacted this legislation? Moreover, do you know it has done so without amendment? I've had a very quick look-see and have observed that the drafters note that their previous draft legislation was not always fully taken on by the states.

^sbm Hi OrangeTabby
Sorry to cite such a confusing source.*

Yes, IL enacted. Here is excerpt from IL statute, http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=2497&ChapterID=59:

"(750 ILCS 36/Art. 1 heading) ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
(750 ILCS 36/101)
Sec. 101. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
(Source: P.A. 93-108, eff. 1-1-04.)"
My bolding
.....

"(750 ILCS 36/404)
Sec. 404. Repeals. The following Acts and parts of Acts are hereby repealed:
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
(Source: P.A. 93-108, eff. 1-1-04.)" My bolding

After the Uniform Commission promulgated UCCJA in 1968, IL enacted it (IDK when).
After Uniform Commission promulgated UCCJEA, then IL repealed UCCJA & thru same bill, enacted UCCJEA.
Not sure what yr. (2002? 2003?), but effective date was Jan 1, 2004, so it has bn in effect ~12 yrs.

Sorry, in my earlier post, should have started by ref'ing & linking the act as IL adopted it. Link is above.
I have not compared IL act to Unif. Act, to see if IL amended it in any way or if it was enacted verbatim.

Hope this helps.

_____________________________________________________________

* Confusing because website for Unif. Commsn Acts tab template is confusing.
On each page for Uni. Act, says "Why States Should Adopt" - says that even after many or all states have enacted.

For ex, at UCCJEA page, "Legislative Fact Sheet" lists the states that have enacted UCCJEA:
"Enactments
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming" ^bbm^

Also at UCCJEA page "Enactment Status Map" we see states are color coded to indicate which states have enacted. Looks like Mass. is the only non-adopting state, shown in white.


CONTRAST info re ^UCCJEA w info about Certification Of Questions of Law (1995) which has been adopted by only 8 states & D.C, shown in blue on map: the "Legislative Fact Sheet" lists those 8 states & D.C. as well.







 
  • #1,918
Based on statute below*, imo, not likely to be successful, specifically because IL ct is likely to rule:
- IL is not the "home state" per definition in Section 102(7), and
- therefore IL ct has no jurisdiction to decide.

Imo, true even tho, per Section 201(c), physical presence of child in the state is not necessary for ct to make a child custody determination.

JM2cts, could be wrong.

____________________________________________________
*. Excerpts from IL law w bbm. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=2497&ChapterID=59
"(750 ILCS 36/102)
Sec. 102. Definitions. In this Act:....
(5) "Commencement" means the filing of the first pleading in a proceeding.
(6) "Court" means an entity authorized under the law of a state to establish, enforce, or modify a child-custody determination.
(7) "Home state" means the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child-custody proceeding. In the case of a child less than six months of age, the term means the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. A period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period.
(8) "Initial determination" means the first child-custody determination concerning a particular child."

"(750 ILCS 36/105)
Sec. 105. International Application Of Act.
(a) A court of this State shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for the purpose of applying Articles 1 and 2.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a child-custody determination made in a foreign country under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this Act must be recognized and enforced under Article 3.
(c) A court of this State need not apply this Act if the child custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.
(Source: P.A. 93-108, eff. 1-1-04.)"
....
"(750 ILCS 36/106)
Sec. 106. Effect Of Child-Custody Determination. A child-custody determination made by a court of this State that had jurisdiction under this Act binds all persons who have been served in accordance with the laws of this State or notified in accordance with Section 108 or who have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, and who have been given an opportunity to be heard. As to those persons, the determination is conclusive as to all decided issues of law and fact except to the extent the determination is modified.
(Source: P.A. 93-108, eff. 1-1-04.)"
....
"ARTICLE 2 JURISDICTION
ILCS 36/201
"Sec. 201. Initial Child-Custody Jurisdiction.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 204, a court of this State has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination only if:
(1) this State is the home state of the child on the

date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this State but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State;
2) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (1),..."
....
"
(
c) Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child-custody determination.
(Source:(750 ILCS 36/313)
....

"Sec. 313. Recognition And Enforcement. A court of this State shall accord full faith and credit to an order issued by another state and consistent with this Act which enforces a child-custody determination by a court of another state unless the order has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so under Article 2.
(Source: P.A. 93-108, eff. 1-1-04.) P.A. 93-108, eff. 1-1-04.)"


 
  • #1,919
I just saw a small news report on the custody matter. It was on Chicago's local NBC station, reported by Chris Coffey. Highlights:

--Stella's transition to living with an Australian couple is nearly settled (whatever that means).

--This couple will receive aid from charity group(s).

--This couple will ensure that Heather and Tommy will be able to see Stella.

--Kia Walker was refused temporary custody, because Heather and Tommy were not served legal papers as part of Walker's application. I'm pretty sure the judge in this case was referred to as "she", so Kia must have been before a family court judge today.

I don't see anything when checking the news via Google, but I expect reports should appear soon, or within several hours.
 
  • #1,920
People magazine reports on custody. Some excerpts:

A Chicago judge declined Friday to rule on a request by the mother of Heather Mack’s ex-boyfriend, who petitioned the court for custody of the child her son fathered with Mack. ... Citing questions over the Illinois family court’s jurisdiction over a child who was born in Indonesia — and has been living there ever since, in Bali’s Kerobokan penitentiary — the judge agreed to re-hear the matter on March 14.

But Walker’s request for guardianship — which could take days or weeks for a judge to issue a ruling on — has the potential to complicate matters for Mack.

Exactly how an Indonesian judge might interpret the decision reached by a Chicago court is unknown.​

https://www.google.com/amp/people.com/crime/heather-mack-custody-dispute-bali-suitcase-murder/amp/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
117
Guests online
2,103
Total visitors
2,220

Forum statistics

Threads
632,525
Messages
18,627,949
Members
243,182
Latest member
SeroujGhazarian
Back
Top