Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle [View all]happyslug
(14,779 posts)237. Look at Section 2, the last sentence of the second paragraph, it reads as follows:
This Act does not limit or exclude any other means either in statute or case law by which a minor may become emancipated.
The term "Case law" means the Common Law, judge made law over the last 1000 years. Thus the COMMON LAW RULE AS TO EMANCIPATION IS STILL THE LAW IN ILLINOIS. A minor MAY use that statute, but the law is clear, the Minor does NOT have to. A minor can use the Common Law Rule instead.
Furthermore I never said a Child can declare themselves emancipated, it require some act of the Child's parents that they are NOT doing any "Care, Control or Supervision" over the minor. Notice a court is NOT needed, all that is needed is the act of the parents.
Furthermore the term "Act" is broader then the term "permission", an act can be a negative act, i.e. not tracking down a run away. Not looking for a run a way. On the other hand a child running away does NOT make themselves emancipated, unless the parents do nothing about it.
Now, reading the Illinois Statute, the langauge implies a minor CAN declare themselves emancipated if the Minor complies with the Statute. This is different from the Common Law Rules, which restricted Emancipation to some act of the Parents, but the Illinois Statute gives that right to a minor, if the Minor complies with the terms of the Act.
Section 1 and 2 of your citation:
FAMILIES
(750 IL CS 30/) Emancipation of Minors Act.
(750 IL CS 30/1) (from Ch. 40, par. 2201)
Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Emancipation of Minors Act.
(Source: P.A. 93-105, WFF. 7-8-03.)
(750 IL CS 30/2) (from Ch. 40, par. 2202)
Sec. 2. Purpose and policy. The purpose of this Act is to provide a means by which a mature minor who has demonstrated the ability and capacity to manage his own affairs and to live wholly or partially independent of his parents or guardian, may obtain the legal status of an emancipated person with power to enter into valid legal contracts. This Act is also intended (i) to provide a means by which a homeless minor who is seeking assistance may have the authority to consent, independent of his or her parents or guardian, to receive shelter, housing, and services provided by a licensed agency that has the ability and willingness to serve the homeless minor and (ii) to do so without requiring the delay or difficulty of first holding a hearing.
This Act is not intended to interfere with the integrity of the family or the rights of parents and their children. No order of complete or partial emancipation may be entered under this Act if there is any objection by the minor, his parents or guardian. No petition may be filed for the partial emancipation of a homeless minor unless appropriate attempts have been made to reunify the homeless minor with his or her family through the services of a Comprehensive Community Based Youth Services Agency. This Act does not limit or exclude any other means either in statute or case law by which a minor may become emancipated.
(Source: P.A. 93-105, WFF. 7-8-03.)
(750 IL CS 30/) Emancipation of Minors Act.
(750 IL CS 30/1) (from Ch. 40, par. 2201)
Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Emancipation of Minors Act.
(Source: P.A. 93-105, WFF. 7-8-03.)
(750 IL CS 30/2) (from Ch. 40, par. 2202)
Sec. 2. Purpose and policy. The purpose of this Act is to provide a means by which a mature minor who has demonstrated the ability and capacity to manage his own affairs and to live wholly or partially independent of his parents or guardian, may obtain the legal status of an emancipated person with power to enter into valid legal contracts. This Act is also intended (i) to provide a means by which a homeless minor who is seeking assistance may have the authority to consent, independent of his or her parents or guardian, to receive shelter, housing, and services provided by a licensed agency that has the ability and willingness to serve the homeless minor and (ii) to do so without requiring the delay or difficulty of first holding a hearing.
This Act is not intended to interfere with the integrity of the family or the rights of parents and their children. No order of complete or partial emancipation may be entered under this Act if there is any objection by the minor, his parents or guardian. No petition may be filed for the partial emancipation of a homeless minor unless appropriate attempts have been made to reunify the homeless minor with his or her family through the services of a Comprehensive Community Based Youth Services Agency. This Act does not limit or exclude any other means either in statute or case law by which a minor may become emancipated.
(Source: P.A. 93-105, WFF. 7-8-03.)
As to Texas, their statute clearly uses the word "MAY" which in legal terms means "MAY" i.e. a minor MAY use the Statute and MAY NOT use the Statute and instead rely on the Common Law Rule. The Texas Statute does NOT repeal the Common Law Rule thus it is still enforced in Texas and "MAY" be used instead of the Statute.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
244 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Oh right, like parents are not going to feel that they have to step in and help?
Tumbulu
Feb 2013
#14
You didn't tell us you know the people involved. Since you know "THAT is the best choice", I must
uppityperson
Feb 2013
#90
You don't understand why a grandparent would want to have their grandchildren around?
Exultant Democracy
Feb 2013
#145
Her parents are legally responsible for her (and her troubles) til she's 18 yrs old
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#53
why the parents of the boy are not legally liable for some of the girl's expenses
AlbertCat
Feb 2013
#97
I'm presuming they are responsible for the other half of medical costs
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#105
I'm going to guess that's why they were only ordered to pay half medical
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#98
Not sure any law requires them to pay for her phone or car. Just her food and lodging and health.
McCamy Taylor
Feb 2013
#122
Oh agreed. They also have to give her clothing. The car thing is weird.
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#123
Or you can be 100% trying to help and teach your kids, and they just don't give a damn.
loudsue
Feb 2013
#70
I am sick of the glorification of birth married to a complete absence of responsibility.
Sekhmets Daughter
Feb 2013
#35
I agree--that would be way past grounds for a visit from Child Protective Services or a
MADem
Feb 2013
#208
Thanks, I'll edit. I was going by a post, not the original article. I defer to the court documents.
freshwest
Feb 2013
#210
Her parents are legally responsible for her (and her troubles) til she's 18 yrs old
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#51
Yes, because they, themselves, should hot have had to commit to any parental
ScreamingMeemie
Feb 2013
#225
Yes, but the parents shouldn't be liable for hospital bills, her transportation etc.
wisteria
Feb 2013
#31
Well, at that point the issue is rape, without the cover of "Romeo and Juliet" laws,
MADem
Feb 2013
#211
We'd defend a 16 year old boy whose parents tried to force him to get a tattoo
muriel_volestrangler
Feb 2013
#186
No, her parents should not get the ultimate decision over her body
muriel_volestrangler
Feb 2013
#205
So if parents can't have the ultimate decision, what's the point of parenthood then?
alp227
Feb 2013
#209
Parents force cosmetic procedures on their children all the time without their consent.
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#219
In the US, Hispanic baby girls very commonly sport pierced ears. Baby Hindu girls with bindis
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#222
Would you make your 16 year old have an abortion if she didn't want to?
Puzzledtraveller
Feb 2013
#153
yes i would - at 16, she had no idea how to take care of herself, much less a baby
wordpix
Feb 2013
#183
Forcing people to have abortions because of your opinion of their abilities
muriel_volestrangler
Feb 2013
#187
i dont understand the 'consequences be damned all that matters is she got her choice'
leftyohiolib
Feb 2013
#159
Agreed. Its odd that neither the parents nor child pursued emancipation
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#121
Many young people are rabidly anti-choice. Something is not right in the education system. n/t
SylviaD
Feb 2013
#8
This girl is from Texas, so she may be more conservative then most others her age.
alp227
Feb 2013
#84
Looks like the parents were trying to show her some adult responsibility.
Dont call me Shirley
Feb 2013
#25
They were paying the phone bill, owned the car and, as her parents, could
Sekhmets Daughter
Feb 2013
#40
She clearly is not--otherwise, her parents wouldn't be required to pay for her care and car. nt
MADem
Feb 2013
#214
Per the article, the girl is living with her mom. And the parents have been ordered to $upport her
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#224
As to emancipation, the Illinois Emancipation of Minors Act has the following sentence:
happyslug
Feb 2013
#234
A child cannot simply declare themselves emancipated and voila! Its done
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#236
Look at Section 2, the last sentence of the second paragraph, it reads as follows:
happyslug
Feb 2013
#237
Is she an emancipated minor? I hadn't seen that. Link? Otherwise they are responsible
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#49
Unless she's won a legal emancipation, they are still responsible for her legally
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#63
link she was not living with her parent now or at the time she became pregnant
azurnoir
Feb 2013
#62
Oh I agree. This case sucks but the parents are still legally responsible
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#66
The proof is the fact that she wasn't living with her parents and I'll tell you how I know.
notadmblnd
Feb 2013
#91
The thing is it's the daughter's choice, which means all the responsibilities of that choice
jeff47
Feb 2013
#69
I agree its unfair regardless of the law. And you put your finger right on the heart of the matter
riderinthestorm
Feb 2013
#218
If a woman can not support herself and her child(ren), the child(ren) should be fostered out or adop
uppityperson
Feb 2013
#75
I understand this is a minor, but was expanding on what you wrote, trying to clarify.
uppityperson
Feb 2013
#89
Good luck to that teen. I hope if she changes her mind or needs help later she can get help. Choice
uppityperson
Feb 2013
#77
The parents could have (should have?) petitioned to have her declared an "emancipated minor".
marybourg
Feb 2013
#79
1) "Roe" made this her choice. There can be no obligation for her to abort.
OmahaBlueDog
Feb 2013
#93
why didn't the court mandate any percentage of support from the baby's father??
Blue_Tires
Feb 2013
#102
actually, if I had my CHOICE, every school would begin in middle school to have a class in
wordpix
Feb 2013
#184
Curious about how the right wing will cover this. Basically, it means that no one can "punish" their
McCamy Taylor
Feb 2013
#125
It's her life & the baby's life. See how she deals with it.Could go either way.Her body / her choice
judesedit
Feb 2013
#126
Now the kid's a saint for saving her unborn baby.. (which is, of course, her choice)
mountain grammy
Feb 2013
#128
Anyone who thinks the parents should have the authority to force an abortion...
NaturalHigh
Feb 2013
#140
The bus service in Houston is horrible. You have to have a car to get anyplace
Manifestor_of_Light
Feb 2013
#174
But in two years, she won't be a teen. And her child will have a whole life ahead of her!
Pterodactyl
Feb 2013
#173
There is something wrong here, this was filed February 11 and the parents had 20 days to respond
happyslug
Feb 2013
#164
The fundies will pick up the tab, wait and see.. I can already see her in her own McMansion and with
secondwind
Feb 2013
#176