From our private database of 32,100+ case briefs...
In re Marriage of Minix
Illinois Appellate Court
344 Ill. App. 3d 801, 801 N.E.2d 1201 (2003)
Facts
In October 2000, a circuit court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage between Wendy Sue Dunaven-Minix (defendant) and David Wayne Minix (plaintiff). The court granted Wendy custody of the couple’s child, Nicole, and granted David visitation rights. The court ordered Wendy and David to continue the previously agreed upon visitation schedule. In August 2002, Wendy filed an opposing motion requesting that the court order David to refrain from taking Nicole to any church services. The court conducted a hearing and heard testimony from Wendy and David. Wendy testified she was an adherent of the Unity Church, but David was a member of a Pentecostal denomination. Wendy also claimed Nicole was becoming confused by attending both churches, though she did not present any evidence that Nicole was harmed by attending church with David. David testified that both denominations were Christian denominations and that he had been taking Nicole to church with him for three years. There was no evidence of any doctrinal differences between the Unity church and the Pentecostal church. The trial court denied Wendy’s motion, finding Wendy had failed to show any substantial threat to Nicole from David’s religious instruction. Wendy appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Appleton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 583,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 32,100 briefs, keyed to 984 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.
