Stability arguments are really a best interest analysis masquerading under some other name. If best interests of the child were a sufficient qualification to determine child custody, anyone with superior income, intelligence, education, etc., might challenge and deprive the parents of their right to their own children. The law is otherwise and was not complied with in this case. In Syck, (In re Adoption of Syck (1990), 138 Ill. 2d255, 149 Ill. Dec. 710, 562 N.E.2d 174) the court held that, where it is alleged that the biological parent is unfit because of a failure to show a reasonable degree of interest in, concern, or responsibility for the child, the court must determine the parents unfitness before the court can proceed to a consideration of the childs best interests: Decisions from other States have also held that the parents fitness must be determined before the court can proceed to an inquiry into the best interests of the child, and that parental rights cannot be terminated, under the guise of the childs best interests, if the parents unfitness has not be proven. See, e.g., In re B.G.C. (Iowa 1992), 496 N.W.2d 239; Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992), 1 Cal. 4th 816, 823 P.2d 1216, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 615. Because termination of parental rights is a permanent and complete deprivation and severance of the relationship between child and parent, legal precedent has demanded a heightened standard of proof, i.e., clear and convincing evidence, in order to prove parental unfitness. (See Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 102 S. Ct. 1388; see also Stanley v.Illinois (1972), 405 U.S. 645, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551, 92 S. Ct. 1208; see generally Lehr v. Robertson (1983), 463 U.S. 248, 77 L. Ed. 2d 614, 103 S. Ct. 2985; Caban v. Mohammed (1979), 441 U.S. 380, 60 L. Ed. 2d 297, 99 S. Ct. 1760; Quilloin v. Walcott (1978), 434 U.S. 246, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 98 S. Ct. 549.) If, as stated by Justice Rizzi, the best interests of the child is to be the determining factor in child custody cases (254 Ill. App. 3d at412), persons seeking babies to adopt might profitably frequent grocery stores and snatch babies from carts when the parent is looking the other way. Then, if custody proceedings can be delayed long enough, they can assert that they have a nicer home, a superior education, a better job or whatever, and that the best interests of the child are with the baby snatchers. Children of parents living in public housing or other conditions deemed less than affluent and children with single parents might be considered particularly fair game. The law, thankfully, is otherwise. In re Kirchner (1994) 159 Ill. 2d 347; 638 N.E.2d 181; 1994 Ill. LEXIS 83; 202 Ill. Dec. 535. Wes Hutchins
Posted on: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 04:25:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015