In Re Parentage of JS
550 N.E.2d 257, 193 Ill. App. 3d 563 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The public policy requiring parents to financially support their children overrides any public policy aimed at protecting minors from the consequences of their improvident actions. A parent's minority status at the time of a child's conception does not excuse that parent from the legal duty of child support.
Facts:
- David M. Williams was 15 years old when he conceived a child, J.S., with Tami Stone.
- After J.S. was born, Williams did not provide any financial support for the child.
- J.S. incurred medical bills totaling $684.16.
- At the time of the support hearing, Tami Stone earned a weekly income of $185 with monthly expenses of approximately $767.
- At the same hearing, David M. Williams was married to another woman who was pregnant.
- Williams's weekly income was $90.93, and he claimed he was unable to meet his monthly expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- The Illinois Attorney General's office, on behalf of Tami Stone, filed a petition in the circuit court of Whiteside County to establish that David M. Williams was the father of her minor son, J.S.
- Following a hearing, the trial court entered a judgment finding Williams to be the father.
- A subsequent hearing was held to determine Williams's financial responsibility.
- The trial court ordered Williams to pay weekly child support, the cost of paternity blood tests, and past medical expenses for J.S.
- Williams (appellant) appealed the financial support order to the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, while Tami Stone (appellee) was represented by the Attorney General.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a father's status as a minor at the time of his child's conception absolve him of the legal duty to provide financial support for that child?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Wombacher
No. A father's status as a minor at the time of his child's conception does not absolve him of his financial support obligations. The court reasoned that Illinois public policy does not provide 'blanket protection' to minors for their improvident acts, citing examples where minors are held to adult standards. Conversely, Illinois public policy recognizes the 'blanket right' of every child to receive support from their parents, and the state has a strong interest in preventing children from becoming public wards. Therefore, the public policy mandating parental support of children is superior to and overrides any policy of protecting a minor from the consequences of their actions. The court also found the support amount ordered by the trial court was not an abuse of discretion, as it was based on statutory guidelines considering the financial situations of both parents.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in Illinois by clarifying that the parental duty of support is a fundamental obligation that is not excused by the parent's minority status at the time of conception. It firmly prioritizes the child's right to financial support and the state's interest in self-sufficient families over the traditional legal policy of protecting minors from their own improvident acts. This decision forecloses a potential defense in paternity and support cases, ensuring that the financial responsibility for a child is shared by both biological parents, regardless of their age or the circumstances of the child's conception. The ruling strengthens the legal framework for child support enforcement and impacts future cases by setting a clear standard of parental responsibility.
