parent bar in Illinois

2023G., 2023 IL App (5th) 220793, ¶ 49 .

1995To hold otherwise would contravene the twin policies of the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which favor the superior rights of parents to the care, custody and control of their children and the deterrence of abductions and other unilateral removals of children from their natural parents. ( In re Marriage of Carey (1989), 188 Ill.App.3d 1040, 1048 , 136 Ill.Dec. 518 , 544 N.E.2d 1293 .) If standing under the Act is not predicated upon voluntary relinquishment, the abduction of a child could result in the abductors having standing under section 601(b)(2), a conclusion hardly intended b

1995To hold otherwise would contravene the twin policies of the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which favor the superior rights of parents to the care, custody and control of their children and the deterrence of abductions and other unilateral removals of children from their natural parents. ( In re Marriage of Carey (1989), 188 Ill.App.3d 1040, 1048 , 136 Ill.Dec. 518 , 544 N.E.2d 1293 .) If standing under the Act is not predicated upon voluntary relinquishment, the abduction of a child could result in the abductors having standing under section 601(b)(2), a conclusion hardly intended b

1981(See Busillo v. Hetzel (1978), 58 Ill.

1980In People v. Love (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 436, 439 , our supreme court held: “However, Rule 604(a) cannot be read in isolation for full understanding but must be considered, in association with the committee comments thereon, with the parent rule (former Rule 27(4)) and with the statutory provision (section 120 — 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) which was superseded by former Rule 27(4).” Rule 27(4) stated: “In criminal cases the State may appeal only from an order or judgment, the substantive effect of which results in dismissing an indictment, information, or complaint.” (Ill.

1978App.2d 420 , 226 N.E.2d 89 , as authority for the proposition that contributory negligence of a parent will bar all recovery in an action for the wrongful death of a child.

1978App. 2d 420 , 226 N.E.2d 89 , as authority for the proposition that contributory negligence of a parent will bar all recovery in an action for the wrongful death of a child.

1955Hazel v. Hoopeston-Danville Bus Co., 310 Ill. 38 ; Ohnesorge v. Chicago City Ry.

1931But if such presumption arises it must arise as a presumption of fact, based upon the proof that the natural dominion of the parent over the child has ceased to exist, and that by reason of the weakness of the parent and the strength of the child the will of the parent has been overcome by the will of the child and that the act of the parent was not his own act but the act of the child.” In Miller v. Miller, supra, the question was upon the sufficiency of a bill filed to enforce a trust, and the court said: “These allegations show a confidential relation existing between appellant and her husb

1931But if such presumption arises it must arise as a presumption of fact, based upon the proof that the natural dominion of the parent over the child has ceased to exist, and that by reason of the weakness of the parent and the strength of the child the will of the parent has been overcome by the will of the child and that the act of the parent was not his own act but the act of the child.” In Miller v. Miller, supra, the question was upon the sufficiency of a bill filed to enforce a trust, and the court said: “These allegations show a confidential relation existing between appellant and her husb

1923The statute creating a cause of action for the death of a person caused by negligence, in favor of his widow and next of kin, to be prosecuted in the name of his personal representatives, was passed in 1853, and in the first case under the statute which reached the Supreme Court, (City of Chicago v. Major, 18 Ill. 349 ,) Mr. Justice Catón speaking for the court gave a full exposition of the purpose and meaning of the statute.

1917Co., 259 Ill. 424 .

1913True & True Co. v. Woda, 201 Ill. 315 , is another case where the previous decisions upon the point under consideration were re-affirmed.

1909Burt v. Quisenberry, 132 Ill. 385 ; Oliphant v. Liversidge, 142 id. 160; Bishop v. Hilliard, 227 id. 382; Sears v. Vaughan, 230 id. 572.