In this particular case I think that the Judges decision was fair because of the previous decision in the Stanley v Illinois trial. The decision stated that a parent has the right to stay home and raise their children, and it is no different in this case. The non-custodial parent has chosen to stay home with her children and shouldn't have her right to stay home with her children taken away from her in this case. No court should overrule a parent's decision to stay home with their children. The plaintiff would have to leave her children with someone else and go to work if it was decided for her to pay child support. It's stated that the plaintiff is not unemployed, she works has a caregiver for her two young children and doesn't get paid with money. She doesn't work for money and therefore isn't unemployed, but doesn't have the money to pay child support. .
Although it may be unfair to release the plaintiff from her previous obligation with her first two children, it is also unfair to take away her right to stay home and raise her children. It may be in the best interest for her children for her to stay home and raise her young children instead of getting a job in order to pay child support. The state may interfere with parental discretion in dealing with children when their physical or mental health is jeopardized but not otherwise. In this case the physical or mental health is not jeopardized with the plaintiff deciding to stay home with her children, so the court shouldn't interfere.
Consideration of the plaintiff's reason for unemployment, ages of children involved, and availability of assets is considered when making this decision. The reason for her unemployment is excusable since it is in the best interests for her two young children. The ages of her children are young and have an influence in the decision because the children are young it may be a good reason for her to stay home with them.
This case had taken place in the supreme court of Illinois in 1978. ... This case was tried in a trial court and then directed to an intermediate appellate court where the issue was the defendant instead of locating the nerve, made a wide cut so as to avoid the area where the nerve was thought to be. ... The holding in the trial court was a direct verdict for the defendant and the appellate court affirmed the trial courts decision. ...
This case had taken place in the supreme court of Illinois in 1978. ... This case was tried in a trial court and then directed to an intermediate appellate court where the issue was the defendant instead of locating the nerve, made a wide cut so as to avoid the area where the nerve was thought to be. ... The holding in the trial court was a direct verdict for the defendant and the appellate court affirmed the trial courts decision. ...
Governor George Ryan, the outgoing governor of the state of Illinois, America, stated in his speech (Northwestern University College of Law, 2003) that he condemned the death penalty and especially the ones who did not went through a fair trial. ... The Most Reverend Desmond Tutu, Anglican Archbishop of South Africa wrote in a letter to the Governor of Illinois, Governor Ryan, that, quote "to take life when a life has been lost is revenge, it is not justice. ... After an error in condemning one of the death row inmates, Anthony Porter, in Illinois, and after Porter was released, the Chicago Tr...
Although the decision to grant blanket clemency in Illinois was a major step, only time will tell if the rest of the United States will follow in many other countries footsteps to abolish capital punishment. ... On January 11th, 2003, Illinois governor George Ryan commuted the sentence of all 167 death-row inmates. ... This decision was made just two days before Ryan's term as governor of Illinois was up, sparking much controversy. ... The justices decided that allowing judges to determine death sentence factors violates defendants" Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. ... Reporte...
The offender is now doing 3 life servings in the Illinois Department of Corrections. ... This answers many questions if teens should be trialed as adults. ... Later when we was in trial, he was proven not guilty because he was mentally ill. ... Or was it because they felt bad that he was ill and did not want a trial by his parents if he was proven guilty of murdering his girlfriend. ... If you ask yourself if teens should be trialed as adults, maybe you can answer it....
That is what headquarters heard on November 7th, 1983 as the Bloomington, Illinois police officers began arriving on the scene of 313 Carl Drive, the home of David Hendricks, his wife Susan, and their three children Rebekah, Grace and Benjamin. ... Medical facts played a huge role in the trial. ... I would not have wanted to be a jury member for this trial, after reading the entire book I can't even begin to decide what happened that terrible night. ... David Hendricks, the defendant on trial is eventually convicted of this crime but even the judge goes on record to say, "he was not con...
He and Scott traveled through Illinois and Minnesota. ... Emerson lived in Illinois and Minnesota made him a free man. ... In the first trial in l846, the St. ... Scott claimed freedom because of his stay in Minnesota and Illinois. ... Finally, Scott was not free because he had lived in Illinois. ...
In other cases prosecutors fail to provide defense attorneys with crucial information or resist the implications of scientific evidence gained after trial that could lead to the reversal of a conviction. ... February 2000, Illinois Governor George Ryan announced a statewide moratorium on the death penalty until he could declare with moral certainty that everyone sentenced to death in his state was truly guilty. Since the death penalty was reintroduced in 1977, more Illinois death row inmates had been exonerated and released (13) than executed (twelve). ... Not long after the Illinois decisio...
