What about kid's rights?

[Joemailman]

Bears LB Urlacher catches break in child custody case
Carmen Greco Jr
7/10/2006


A Will County judge ruled Monday that Bears middle linebacker Brian Urlacher is entitled to overnight visits with his 13-month-old son, who was born out of wedlock to a Joliet woman.

Judge Ludwig Kuhar's decision was the latest wrinkle in what could become a nasty child-custody trial scheduled to open in the middle of the Bears' season.

"I don't get to see him as much as I'd like," Urlacher testified at a hearing in the Will County Courthouse in Joliet. "We (he and the mother) have conflicts most of the time."

Urlacher, 28, initially petitioned the court to allow the boy to stay with him for most of the remainder of the summer. But with the trial being moved back from July to October and training camp opening July 27 in Bourbonnais, Urlacher's lawyers amended the petition to seek overnight stays.

Tyna Robertson, 34, the boy's mother, fought Urlacher's request, saying she feared the child could suffer "separation anxiety. I've been with him since birth," she testified. "When he wakes up in the morning, he asks for me."

But Kuhar ruled Urlacher could keep his son overnight for two nights per month until the custody case is decided. That, he said, would keep the parents from exchanging the boy at a tollway oasis in Hinsdale and putting him through a potentially dangerous three-hour round-trip commute with Urlacher two or three times per week.

The judge also rejected a request that Urlacher, a millionaire sports star, rent a limousine for all the pickups to make the commute easier on the child.

Urlacher is seeking partial or full custody of the boy from Robertson, who says she lives with her mother and works as a real estate agent in Joliet.
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com



The two stupid adults who created this situation have lawyers to look after their interests. Too bad the court can't assign a lawyer for the child to make sure someone is looking after the welfare of the child. :mad:

[GrnBay007]

Both attorney's and the Judge should be looking after the best interest of the child....but sadly it doesn't work that way. I believe Brian should have the right to spend time with his child ...but I also believe if he's not been around the child on an ongoing basis, overnights at this age are not appropriate. They need to gradually work up to that.

Sad thing is these two will fight and fight....just like many divorce cases and the ONLY winners are the attorneys representing them.

[GBRulz]

I think Urlacher has every right to see his child. However, there are some things that i'd like to know that the article doesn't tell. Like where the hell has he been over the past year? If the woman simply refusing to let him see his kid or what?

Agreed with 007, only the fricken lawyers win

[the_idle_threat]

I think there was some confusion ... Urlacher was actually petitioning for overnight visits with the mother ...

[MJZiggy]

My nephew used to volunteer for this org.

http://www.nationalcasa.org/htm/about.htm

Not all lawyers are trustworthy.

[the_idle_threat]

The lawyers are kind of a cheap target in this situation. They're employed by the parties to help resolve a dispute that the parties themselves don't want to resolve fairly.

[MJZiggy]

That's true. Their job is to make the case come out the way their client wants it to, not necessarily the best way. One would think that a decent lawyer would be advising their clients not to screw with the children, but it doesn't always work out that way.

[woodbuck27]

Modifying support through increased visitation is sometimes possible as part of an integrated approach to custody/visitation/support .

Did you know this?

USEFUL STATISTICS I selected them from the U.S. of A. Stat's - as most of you are citizens of the U.S.

* 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes

(Source: U.S. D.H.K.S., Bureau of the Census)

* 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes

(Source: U.S- D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)

*85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes

(Source: Center for Disease Control)

*80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes

(Source:Criminal Justice & Behavior,Vol 14, p- 403-26, 1978

*71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes

(Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High schools)

*75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes

(Source: Rainbows For All God’s Children.)

*70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes

(Source: U.S. Dept. of justice, special Report, Sept 1988)



These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:

*5 times more likely to commit suicide.

*32 times more likely to run away.

*20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.

*14 times more likely to commit rape

*9 times more likely to drop out of high school.

*10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.

*9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.

*20 times more like to end up in prison.

That is why the bottom line is - two people who understand what 'to LOVE' really means - are the percusor towords, their potential childrens happiness. To LOVE has nothing at all to do with pure and senseless selfishness - in the sense of selfless greed.

Far too often a product of that union - the childrens welfare, is sacrificed - for the battle between the parents.

Marriage and all it may be, has to a serious commitment for the couple and the results of that union. A failed marriage far too often, has too great a negative impact on the children born of that union and to OUR society in general.

The first consideration of the courts IMO should be. The security and welfare of OUR children, as they are OUR FUTURE.

[MJZiggy]

Buck, there's a book out there called Freakonomics. I've mentioned it here before, I think you'd find it interesting if you haven't read it already. It's by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen j. Dubner. Good read.

[woodbuck27]

Buck, there's a book out there called Freakonomics. I've mentioned it here before, I think you'd find it interesting if you haven't read it already. It's by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen j. Dubner. Good read.

Good morning MJ.

About Freakonomics:

Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? How much do parents really matter? What kind of impact did Roe v. Wade have on violent crime?

These may not sound like typical questions for an economist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He is a much heralded scholar who studies the stuff and riddles of everyday life -- from cheating and crime to sports and child rearing -- and whose conclusions regularly turn the conventional wisdom on its head. He usually begins with a mountain of data and a simple, unasked question. Some of these questions concern life-and-death issues; others have an admittedly freakish quality. Thus the new field of study contained in this book: freakonomics.

Through forceful storytelling and wry insight, Levitt and co-author Stephen J. Dubner show that economics is, at root, the study of incentives -- how people get what they want, or need, especially when other people want or need the same thing. In Freakonomics, they set out to explore the hidden side of ... well, everything. The inner workings of a crack gang. The truth about real-estate agents. The myths of campaign finance. The telltale marks of a cheating schoolteacher. The secrets of the Ku Klux Klan.

What unites all these stories is a belief that the modern world, despite a surfeit of obfuscation, complication, and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not unknowable, and -- if the right questions are asked -- is even more intriguing than we think.

All it takes is a new way of looking. Steven Levitt, through devilishly clever and clear-eyed thinking, shows how to see through all the clutter.

Freakonomics establishes this unconventional premise: If morality represents how we would like the world to work, then economics represents how it actually does work. It is true that readers of this book will be armed with enough riddles and stories to last a thousand cocktail parties. But Freakonomics can provide more than that. It will literally redefine the way we view the modern world.

I have to find that book, Ziggy. Many Thanks Lady.

[Deputy Nutz]

Now the only thing I know about this case with Urlacher is what I just read so bare with me, and this is no way a sterotypical take on women in general.

Shouldn't this thread be titled, "Fathers Rights"? It seems that Urlacher has had nothing but legal battles to see his son. This women seems to be holding out to get more cash, or a better opportunity. You know the last thing she wants is to have to give up custody, and have good bye to her child support check each month, which has to be in the tens of thousands.

What is this bull at the end where she requested a limo to pick up her kid because of the dangerous car ride? I think she is just pimpin him.

It all sounds like a big joke on her end, and it seems that Urlacher is genuine about wanting his son to be a part of his life. Since when do have to pay a fee to see your kids?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

The woman, like most women, just want child support. Say, Urlacher's salary for next year is $7.5 Mil. 25% of that is $1.875 M.

What does an infant need $1.875M for? Women loves money and they will do anything for it, even selling their body. :)

[BigDmoney]

The woman, like most women, just want child support. Say, Urlacher's salary for next year is $7.5 Mil. 25% of that is $1.875 M.

What does an infant need $1.875M for? Women loves money and they will do anything for it, even selling their body. :)


The worst part about this is that there is no regulation of any sort (state of federal) saying what that money goes towards. Child support should be for the benefit of the child only. My fathers child support money he provided my mother when I was growing up went towards vacations my mother took with my step-dad and two seater sports cars. There should be some sort of mandate for the child support money like a portion going to a college fund or savings account. But right now nothing like that is out there and it's a tragedy.

[MJZiggy]

Now the only thing I know about this case with Urlacher is what I just read so bare with me, and this is no way a sterotypical take on women in general.

Shouldn't this thread be titled, "Fathers Rights"? It seems that Urlacher has had nothing but legal battles to see his son. This women seems to be holding out to get more cash, or a better opportunity. You know the last thing she wants is to have to give up custody, and have good bye to her child support check each month, which has to be in the tens of thousands.

What is this bull at the end where she requested a limo to pick up her kid because of the dangerous car ride? I think she is just pimpin him.

It all sounds like a big joke on her end, and it seems that Urlacher is genuine about wanting his son to be a part of his life. Since when do have to pay a fee to see your kids?

I thought that there were laws that stipulated what kind of visitation rights fathers could have. I know that child support is dependent upon the child having the father's last name, but I had thought I'd heard of cases years ago in which they made the child support contingent on his ability to see the kids. I think that a percentage of child support payments should go directly into a college or trust fund to help these kids get either an education or a decent start to their adult lives.

[Tony Oday]

agreed Big D. This is just stupid over a million for child support? WTF!!!!!!

[woodbuck27]

"Women loves money and they will do anything for it, even selling their body. :)" APB

Tank. Place the word 'some' at the front of that sentence and ask yourself if that isn't a more accurate fairer statement?

Just a thought.

Hope things are running smooth with your new Lass!

Oh Tank.Looks like Michael Huff is All around a decent fella. Dam he looks strong man.

http://www.raiderfans.net/forum/gallery/data/12010/368youth_skills_camp_1.JPG

[Deputy Nutz]

Now the only thing I know about this case with Urlacher is what I just read so bare with me, and this is no way a sterotypical take on women in general.

Shouldn't this thread be titled, "Fathers Rights"? It seems that Urlacher has had nothing but legal battles to see his son. This women seems to be holding out to get more cash, or a better opportunity. You know the last thing she wants is to have to give up custody, and have good bye to her child support check each month, which has to be in the tens of thousands.

What is this bull at the end where she requested a limo to pick up her kid because of the dangerous car ride? I think she is just pimpin him.

It all sounds like a big joke on her end, and it seems that Urlacher is genuine about wanting his son to be a part of his life. Since when do have to pay a fee to see your kids?

I thought that there were laws that stipulated what kind of visitation rights fathers could have. I know that child support is dependent upon the child having the father's last name, but I had thought I'd heard of cases years ago in which they made the child support contingent on his ability to see the kids. I think that a percentage of child support payments should go directly into a college or trust fund to help these kids get either an education or a decent start to their adult lives.

Remember, alot of the child support laws are governed by the state, not the federal government. It is different in every state. Like in Texas, if your name is on the birth certificate, and you prove that you are not the biological father, guess what, you pay the child support. Fair aint it?

Child Support in most states has nothing to do with visitation rights. You could have molested that child, and because of that, you have no visitation rights, but you better believe that you are paying child support. Just because you are scum, doesn't mean you get off the responsibility hook.

[MJZiggy]

I thought that there were laws that stipulated what kind of visitation rights fathers could have. I know that child support is dependent upon the child having the father's last name, but I had thought I'd heard of cases years ago in which they made the child support contingent on his ability to see the kids. I think that a percentage of child support payments should go directly into a college or trust fund to help these kids get either an education or a decent start to their adult lives.

Remember, alot of the child support laws are governed by the state, not the federal government. It is different in every state. Like in Texas, if your name is on the birth certificate, and you prove that you are not the biological father, guess what, you pay the child support. Fair aint it?

Child Support in most states has nothing to do with visitation rights. You could have molested that child, and because of that, you have no visitation rights, but you better believe that you are paying child support. Just because you are scum, doesn't mean you get off the responsibility hook.

I stated that badly, I meant to add that there are also complications because of the fact that some parents (abusers and molesters) should not be with the children and yet retain the responsibility for providing for them. And I wholeheartedly agree that the Texas law is idiotic.

Perhap I should write to my senator about that trust fund idea. It would make it tougher on moms who struggle to provide for their kids, though.

What do you guys think? Should part of a child support payment be set aside to provide for the child's education and growing up and moving out expenses? Imagine how much money that would be if it were mandated to begin at birth or babyhood!

[Deputy Nutz]

I think Child Support is bullshit.

If parents are not together, then they both should be equals in taking care of that child. As we can see money alone does not solve the situation. Parents are finding ways to screw over reciepents of the child support, or the reciepent is not using the money in ways to provide for the child. It is just to bad that men in general would rather send 17%(in Wisconsin) of their check each month to their children's other parent, so they can slack on the other parential responsibilities.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Here's what I learned in Philosophy 101:

Infant are soulless. They lack soul because they depend wholly on others for survival.

Children are animals. Though they have soul, they survive only through instincts.

[Tony Oday]

Here's what I learned in Philosophy 101:

Infant are soulless. They lack soul because they depend wholly on others for survival.

Children are animals. Though they have soul, they survive only through instincts.

you are a moron. HAve a kid and look at said kid and retry this statement.

do not talk about your little books that have no grasp of reality you little punk.

[Zool]

Here's what I learned in Philosophy 101:

Infant are soulless. They lack soul because they depend wholly on others for survival.

Children are animals. Though they have soul, they survive only through instincts.

Moron. Thats not even funny for the sake of being stupid. That just you being you. Dont reproduce please.

You pretty much just insulted every person here with a kid.

[GrnBay007]

Looks like this article from The Herald News Online was writen about a month ago -- of course you can only believe about half of what you read and/or hear, but if half is true of Brian's ex lover, I wouldn't want my child growing up with her either.


Urlacher baby custody trial set for July 17

By Stewart Warren
STAFF WRITER

JOLIET — Chicago Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher will go to trial July 17 to seek custody of his 1-year-old son.

The contentious case has been pending for the past year.

The boy's mother is Tyna M. Robertson, a former Joliet resident who sells real estate and now lives in Naperville. She is the same woman who filed a $35 million lawsuit in March 2003 against Michael Flatley, the Irish dancer known for the "Lord of the Dance" and "Riverdance" productions. Robertson accused Flatley of raping her while they were in a Las Vegas hotel. In September 2003, a judge dismissed the lawsuit.

During the same year, Robertson told Naperville police that a doctor touched her inappropriately at Edward Hospital. Police said she later recanted her story, and no criminal charges were filed.

In June 2005, Urlacher filed the paternity suit in Will County to establish that he is the 1-year-old's father. Genetic testing confirmed the fact, according to court documents.
Robertson asked for financial support and a judge ordered Urlacher to pay her $2,000 a month.

Represented by Donald Schiller of Chicago-based Schiller, Du Canto and Fleck, Urlacher has accused Robertson of having "uncontrollable rages," according to court documents.

At one point, he said she switched the child from formula to breast milk as an excuse to keep the boy away from his father. He has also said that when they are scheduled to meet so he can spend time with the boy, she sometimes arrives late.

Additionally, his lawyers recently filed subpoenas with the managers of several Chicago-area strip clubs seeking financial records that would list how much Robertson had been paid while employed there.

On Friday afternoon, a hearing in the case was scheduled for Will County Judge Ludwig Kuhar's courtroom. Dressed in a conservative dark pantsuit, Robertson carried her son in her arms. Shawn Bersson appeared in court to represent her. Urlacher was not there.

The judge told Bersson and Deborah Carder, also of Schiller, Du Canto and Fleck, that he wanted a doctor to evaluate the boy's relationship with his parents and then detail his findings in a report. There was some discussion about the time frame and the likelihood that the project could be completed before July 17.

Kuhar then scheduled both sides to return to court at 1:30 p.m. June 23.

Accompanied by several women, Robertson left the courtroom without commenting on the case.