*1 the Act is whether a violation of bargain? apply Does it power on the Board’s impact of a violation apply Does it de minimis? orderly relation- promote an and constructive statutory mission to always Does de minimis ship the teachers and the district? between trifle, too small to thing? does it mean—a mean the same And what noticed, bothering not worth with? (one minimal or two effect on one teacher Something that has a necessarily a minimal have supervision assignments) hall does change a unilateral group. as a One cannot effect on teachers infer planning periods also slight a minimal or effect on teacher which has ability represent a minimal effect on the Association’s has However, only speculate what bargain for them. we can teachers any alleged had on the Association’s status effect violation raised bargaining representative as a because that issue was never in the way and finds its into the case footnote Board’s decision. Guardian, BLACK,
THE on behalf of PEOPLE ex rel. ELLA as Parent Estock, Minor, NEBY, Plaintiff-Appellee, Michael v. MICHAEL E.
Defendant-Appellant. Fourth District No. 4 — 93—0551 Argued May Opinion filed June 1994. *2 COOK, J., concurring part. and Kirchner, (argued), Champaign, Lerner & for Robert G. Kirchner appellant. Burris, General, Chicago (Rosalyn Kaplan, Attorney B. So-
Roland W. General, O’Hara, Attorney (argued), General licitor and Alison E. Assistant counsel), appellee. opinion of the court: JUSTICE LUND delivered the Parentage brought Illinois This is a cause of action under the (West 1992)). (Act) (750 seq. The trial of 1984 et Neby summary judgment against defendant Michael E. on entered future child paternity past and ordered the issue of payments. appeals. complaint contained questions whether The first issue de- justify exercising jurisdiction Illinois over allegations to
sufficient complaint fendant, The amended a resident of Minnesota. —filed Black, Aid, Ella of Public on relation of Department that defendant of the minor Michael Estock —states behalf the child of the minor and that father and Ella Black is the mother conceived in Illinois. was sufficient within Illinois is now hold that sexual intercourse over defendant under jurisdiction confer within the State to
conduct
209(a)(6)(West
long-arm 5/2 —
See
been met.
process requirements
that due
(1945),
310, 316, 90 L.
v.
326 U.S.
Washington
International Shoe Co.
154,
95, 102,
158;
Superior
Ed.
66 S. Ct.
Kulko v.
Court
132,
1690, 1696-97;
84, 92,
People ex
56 L. Ed. 2d
98 S. Ct.
U.S.
546, 550,
106 Ill. 2d
478 N.E.2d
Mangold
Flieger
rel.
II
is based
the fourth
m2 Defendant’s
second contention
This
search and seizure.
prohibition
amendment’s
of unreasonable
right
length in
v. Adams
149 Ill. 2d
People
is discussed at
Dutkanych
paternity actions was and the acknowledged. a child providing support parent from the natural insignificant. participant in a blood test is Where threat child, here, respondent’s paternity the mother of the has sworn to affidavit, testimony, trial courts have reasonable complaint, or Here, there was also evidence of sexual in to order the test. near the time of tercourse between the mother and defendant conception.
III issue, (cid:127)3 As his third defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling objection constitutionality of section *3 provides, part, Act. That of the in that the reoort Act prepared by appointed expert of the blood shall be admitted tests the at trial unless: challenging admissibility report is
"[A] written motion the of the by party days receipt report, the in filed either within 28 trial, expert testimony required. shall be Before which case deny court shall determine whether the motion is sufficient to report by Failure to make that admission of timely verification. object motion constitutes a waiver of the to to by admission and shall not be for a continu- verification 45/11(e) paternity.” ance of the (West 1992). to determine 750 ILCS challenge the argues opportunity he was denied an Accordingly, expert’s findings opinions on cross-examination. due-process rights under the United States and Illinois Constitutions acknowledges provisions were violated. Defendant section trial, Act, of the which involve admission of evidence at do directly pertain disposition a of a case on a motion for to trial court’s summary judgment. defendant address the of the Nor does admissibility reports may be providing that of the test 206 days
challenged filing appropriate receipt motion within 28 report. relationship The statute’s bear a reasonable interest, adopted a public and the means is reasonable method of (Crocker accomplishing objective. Finley the chosen 1346.) Accordingly, strong presumption attaches 2d legislative enactments such that reasonable doubts must be (Thillens, legislation’s Morey 11 resolved favor. Inc. v. 735.) 28-day 144 Ill. 2d N.E.2d limitation is reasonable.
IV contention that the trial court Defendant’s fourth issue Summary judgment granted summary judgment. should not have granted should when: file, pleadings, depositions, together and admissions
"[T]he
affidavits, any,
genuine
if
show that there is no
issue as
with the
moving party
any
material fact and that the
is entitled to
1005(c)
judgment
a matter
law.”
735
5/2—
the trial
indicated defendant had
The information before
court
There was
engaged
sexual intercourse with the child’s mother.
(the
dispute
September
approximate
about intercourse in
time of
claiming he was not in Illinois at that
conception), with defendant
However, an
traffic
to defendant
undisputed
time.
ticket was issued
during
city
of the mother’s residence
that month.
11(f)(4)
provides:
Section
alleged
is not
"If the blood or tissue tests show that the
father
paternity index is at least 500 to
the al-
excluded and combined
father,
leged
presumed
be the
and this evidence shall
father is
presumption
be rebutted
clear
be admitted. This
1992).
45/11(f)(4)(West
convincing evidence.” 750 ILCS
hand,
paternity index was
combined
In the case at
defendant’s
justify,
which would
2,348
did not
to Defendant
summary judgment. We
light
a denial of the
plaintiffs
App.
Ill.
Dewey
that in Breese v.
find this case similar to
ex rel. Stockwill v. Keller
3d
924. See also
N.E.2d
V the trial carefully presented to examined evidence (cid:127)5 We past and current child upon which both the *4 (West (750 ILCS 14 of the Act were ordered. Under section 45/14 Marriage and Dissolution of 1992)), section 505 of (West Act) (750 is to (Marriage ILCS Marriage Act requires provision The latter support payments. all child control court, considering following guidelines "unless the after evidence factors, deviating from presented on all finds reason for (West 1992).) 5/505(a)(2) That section guidelines.” 5/505(a)(2) findings requires express if there is deviation. 750 Marriage Act, support As we understand section 505 payments, required guidelines, must be based use upon speculation. necessary cannot find this evi- testimony Adequate transcripts dence or the exhibits. tax are employment records and both Federal and State information necessary. attempt Our to calculate the 20% child has led to an amount the trial court. We less than that awarded support conclude the entire issue child should be returned to the hearing, evidentiary trial court for an additional where both sides present adequate evidence to the trial court. parentage
We affirm the determination of and the decision that child back the time of birth. ordered We reverse for an additional remand determination child support. expect present competent We would counsel to calculations upon of various deductions used to determine the base income which Nothing the 20% amount is calculated. in this order is intended prevent guidelines reasoning. deviation from based sound in part; part
Affirmed reversed in and cause remanded. STEIGMANN, J„ concurs. COOK, concurring part part:
JUSTICE agree everything majority except with has said and done disagree the reversal and remand. I with that opinion, my for the reasons set out in dissent in ex rel. Hines 739, 748-53, Hines 909-12 (Cook, J., dissenting). not be to benefit on Defendant should allowed review from his failure trial court. We should affirm unless defendant has convinced us the trial court was wrong. The fact that we do not understand how the trial court wrong. reached its decision does not mean the trial court was