2025 IL 130931
Ill.2025Background
- Viera Hulsh, after regaining custody of her children in federal court under the Hague Convention, sued her former mother-in-law and brother-in-law in Illinois state court, alleging they aided her ex-husband in abducting the children from Slovakia.
- Viera sought damages for expenses incurred in regaining custody, arguing for tortious interference with custodial rights and aiding and abetting such interference.
- The circuit court dismissed her tortious interference claims on the ground that Illinois does not recognize a civil cause of action for such interference.
- The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Illinois courts have repeatedly declined to recognize this tort.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted review to determine whether to judicially recognize tortious interference with custodial rights as a cause of action under Illinois law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Illinois recognize a tort for interference with custodial rights? | Illinois should allow custodial parents to recover economic damages specifically for expenses in regaining custody. | Illinois has never recognized such a tort; Viera had remedies under federal law and public policy does not support creating a new tort. | Illinois courts continue to decline to recognize this cause of action and defer to the legislature. |
| Should § 700 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts be adopted for this purpose? | Illinois should adopt § 700 at least for economic damages. | That section has not been adopted in Illinois and would represent a major change in law. | Court will not adopt § 700; decision on new causes of action is for the legislature. |
| Can damages be claimed if limited only to economic loss rather than to the parent-child relationship? | Seeks only economic loss, not emotional damages for loss of relationship. | Damages must arise from a recognized tort; no such tort exists in Illinois. | No, because there is no underlying tort recognized in Illinois law. |
| Does federal law (ICARA) or criminal law preempt a state cause of action? | Existing state law does not address civil remedies for aiding abduction. | Federal law (ICARA) and Illinois law already provide remedies; civil action unnecessary. | Recognizes that ICARA and state criminal laws exist; no state civil tort recognized. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dralle v. Ruder, 124 Ill. 2d 61 (Ill. 1988) (declined to recognize loss of companionship claim for nonfatal child injuries)
- Vitro v. Mihelcic, 209 Ill. 2d 76 (Ill. 2004) (no statutory basis for loss of filial consortium for nonfatal injuries)
- Doe v. McKay, 183 Ill. 2d 272 (Ill. 1998) (no cause of action for direct or indirect interference with parent-child relationship)
- Whitehorse v. Critchfield, 144 Ill. App. 3d 192 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (Illinois courts decline to recognize tortious interference with custodial rights)