Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

In re Kirchner

Supreme Court of Illinois
649 N.E.2d 324 (Ill. 1995)


Facts

Otakar Kirchner (plaintiff) and Daniella Janikova planned to marry. Janikova became pregnant with Kirchner’s child, Richard. Before Richard was born, Kirchner traveled from the United States to his native Czechoslovakia to tend to a dying family member. After Richard was born, and while Kirchner was still out of the country, Janikova put Richard up for adoption and devised a plan to tell Kirchner that Richard had died during birth. Mr. and Mrs. Doe adopted Richard with the knowledge that Janikova knew Kirchner was the father and that Kirchner had not consented to the adoption. The Does acquiesced to Janikova telling Kirchner that Richard had died. Kirchner eventually discovered that Richard was alive and brought suit to gain custody. The trial court found that Kirchner was unfit to be a parent due to being an unwed father and failing to show interest or concern about Richard during the first 30 days after Richard’s birth. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the lower courts and vacated the Does’ adoption of Richard, holding that Kirchner’s parental rights were never properly terminated. The Does, however, did not return Richard to Kirchner. Instead, the Does petitioned the Circuit Court of Cook County for an adoption hearing based on an Illinois law requiring that, upon the vacating of an adoption, a custody hearing be held to determine custody based on the best interests of the child. Kirchner then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of Illinois. At this point, Richard was almost four years old.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (McMorrow, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.