Court Opinion

ID: 9861759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:28:07.071007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:56.075608
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE CAHILL, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The opinion in Nichol v. Stass, 192 Ill. 2d 233, 735 N.E.2d 582 (2000), is a narrow one. Relying on reasoning developed in Cates v. Cates, 156 Ill. 2d 76, 619 N.E.2d 715 (1993), and Commerce Bank v. Augsburger, 288 Ill. App. 3d 510, 680 N.E.2d 822 (1997), Nichol extends a limited form of parental immunity to foster parents. The role of a natural parent and a foster parent in the life of a child is so often similar our supreme court concluded that it would be anomalous to reject a limited form of personal immunity for foster parents. The immunity shields one person in his or her relationship with one child. To now broaden limited immunity to include a corporation, however dedicated, however essential its work, strikes me as a public policy decision for the legislature. I would not withdraw our original opinion in this case.