In re Kirchner
Illinois Supreme Court
649 N.E.2d 324 (1995)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
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
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Dissent (McMorrow, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.