750 ILCS 5/602
November 13, 2015 § Leave a comment
(750 ILCS 5/602) (from Ch. 40, par. 602) (Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2016) Sec. 602. Best Interest of Child. (a) The court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interest of the child. The court shall consider all relevant factors including: (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 bestinterest; (4) the child’s adjustment to his home, school and community; (5) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; (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; (7) the occurrence of ongoing or repeated abuse as defined in Section 103 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986, whether directed against the child or directed against another person; (8) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child; (9) whether one of the parents is a sex offender; and (10) the terms of a parent’s military family-care plan that a parent must complete before deployment if a parent is a member of the United States Armed Forces who is being deployed. In the case of a custody proceeding in which a stepparent has standing under Section 601, it is presumed to be in the best interest of the minor child that the natural parent have the custody of the minor child unless the presumption is rebutted by the stepparent. (b) The court shall not consider conduct of a present or
proposed custodian that does not affect his relationship to the child. (c) Unless the court finds the occurrence of ongoing abuseas defined in Section 103 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986, the court shall presume that the maximum involvement and cooperation of both parents regarding the physical, mental, moral, and emotional well-being of their child is in the best interest of the child. There shall be no presumption in favor of or against joint custody. (Source: P.A. 95-331, eff. 8-21-07; 96-676, eff. 1-1-10. Repealed by P.A. 99-90, eff. 1-1-16.) Best Interests of the Child, Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth EditionBest interests of the child. Family law. A standard by which acourt determines what arrangements would be to a child’s greatest benefit, often used in deciding child-custody and visitation matters and in deciding whether to approve an adoption or a guardianship. A court may use many factors, including the emotional tie between the child and the parent or guardian, the ability of a parent or guardian to give the child love and guidance, the ability of a parent or guardian to provide necessaries, the established living arrangement between a parent or guardian and the child, the child’s preference if the child is old enough that the court will consider that preference in making a custody award, and a parent’s ability to foster a healthy relationship between the child and the other parent. Judges are Presumed to Know the Law; In Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 563, 564, (2004) “If the law was clearly established. . . a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-811.ZO.html, State v. WicklineState v. WhiteThe Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law.” We have long recognized that the Amendment’s Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart, “guarantees more than fair process.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 (1997). The Clause also includes a substantive component that “providesheightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.” Id., at 720; see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301—302 (1993). The liberty interest at issue in this case–the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children–is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923), we held that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up children” and “to control the educationof their own.” Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of
Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534—535 (1925), we again heldthat the “liberty of parents and guardians” includes the right “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” We explained in Piercethat “[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Id., at 535. We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child residefirst in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the statecan neither supply nor hinder.” Id., at 166. First, the Troxels did not allege, and no court has found, that Granville was an unfit parent. That aspect of the case is important, for there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interestsof their children. As this Court explained in Parham: “[O]ur constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is the mere creature of the State and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generallyhave the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations. … The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.” 442 U.S., at 602 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).Accordingly, so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children. See, e.g., Flores, 507 U.S., at 304.