Faris v. Faris, No. 39767

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtHERSHEY
Citation220 N.E.2d 210,35 Ill.2d 305
Decision Date23 September 1966
Docket NumberNo. 39767
PartiesWilam FARIS, Appellee, v. Harry FARIS, Appellant.

Page 210

220 N.E.2d 210
35 Ill.2d 305
Wilam FARIS, Appellee,
v.
Harry FARIS, Appellant.
No. 39767.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Sept. 23, 1966.

[35 Ill.2d 306]

Page 211

Theodore L. Anderson, Sycamore, for appellant.

HERSHEY, Justice.

Wilma Faris filed a petition in the circuit court of De Kalb County for writ of Habeas corpus to secure from her former husband, Harry Faris, their three-year-old daughter, Wendy Faris. Upon respondent's failure to produce the child as ordered by the trial court, he was adjudged in contempt and ordered committed to the county jail pending compliance. Claiming violation of his constitutional rights, respondent has appealed directly to this court.

It appears that the parties were married in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1961, and later moved to De Kalb County, Illinois, where they resided with their two children until November 1964, when petitioner returned to Oklahoma with only one of her daughters, leaving Wendy with respondent in Illinois. On August 3, 1965, after a third child had been born of the marriage, petitioner instituted a suit for divorce in Oklahoma and a divorce decree was entered on Septembr 20, 1965. The Oklahoma decree found that service of process upon respondent had been obtained by publication and granted custody of all three children to the mother. Shortly thereafter petitioner resumed her residence in Illinois and on November 2, 1965, commenced the instant Habeas corpus proceeding.

Pursuant to the petition, a writ of Habeas corpus issued [35 Ill.2d 307] directing respondent to produce Wendy Faris in open court on November 4, 1965. He entered his unqualified appearance on November 5 and at the same time moved to quash the writ on the principal ground that the Oklahoma court had at no time acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent or Wendy Faris. Upon denial of his motion to quash, respondent filed his return to the writ of Habeas corpus, stating that on May 6, 1965, he had surrendered the custody and control of said child to Reverend and Mrs. George Karney of Bristol, Connecticut, whereupon the court ordered respondent to produce her in open court on November 12. When he refused to comply, he was found in contempt of court.

It has long been established that Habeas corpus is a proper proceeding to determine the custody of minor children. (People ex rel. O'Connell v. Turner, 55 Ill. 280; Giacopelli v. Florence Crittenton Home, 16 Ill.2d 556, 158 N.E.2d 613.) And

Page 212

although divorce decrees of sister States, and their related child custody determinations, will be given full faith and credit if based upon proper jurisdictional ground, (People ex rel. Koelsch v. Rone, 3 Ill.2d 483, 121 N.E.2d 738) our courts are not precluded from further considering such matters where the foreign court did not have proper jurisdiction over the parties, or where circumstances have arisen since the divorce which would warrant a review of the custody issue. (People ex rel. Stockham v. Schaedel, 340 Ill. 560, 173 N.E. 172; May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 73 S.Ct. 840, 97 L.Ed. 1221; 16 I.L.P., Divorce, § 244.) When the latter issue is reconsidered by our courts, the best interest of the child is of prime consideration. Giacopelli v. Florence Crittenton Home, 16 Ill.2d 556, 158 N.E.2d 613.

The instant petition for writ of Habeas corpus, in addition to pointing out the Oklahoma child custody determination, alleged that 'said child is of tender years and requires a mother's care for her proper upbringing, and that petitioner[35 Ill.2d 308] is financially...

To continue reading

Request your trial
51 practice notes
  • M.M., In re, Nos. 73377
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • August 26, 1993
    ...matter jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to adjudge concerning the general question involved (see Faris v. Faris (1966), 35 Ill.2d 305, 309, 220 N.E.2d 210), as well as the power to grant the particular relief requested (People ex rel. Rice v. Appellate Court (1971), 48 Ill.2d 1......
  • In re the Marriage of David Newton, Nos. 1–09–0683
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 30, 2011
    ...711 N.E.2d 10 (1999) (citing People v. Graves, 74 Ill.2d 279, 284–85, 24 Ill.Dec. 153, 384 N.E.2d 1311 (1979), quoting Faris v. Faris, 35 Ill.2d 305, 309, 220 N.E.2d 210 (1966)). “[E]xposing oneself ‘to a finding of contempt is an appropriate method of testing the validity of a court order.......
  • Belleville Toyota v. Toyota Motor Sales, No. 90340.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • March 15, 2002
    ...N.E.2d 474 (1965); Van Dam v. Van Dam, 21 Ill.2d 212, 216, 171 N.E.2d 594 (1961); 14 Ill. L. 16, at 183 (1968); see also Fans v. Faris, 35 Ill.2d 305, 309, 220 N.E.2d 210 (1966); Restatement (Second) of Judgments ž 11 (1982). With the exception of the circuit court's power to review adminis......
  • Health Cost Controls v. Sevilla, No. 1-98-1695.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 27, 1999
    ...N.E.2d 702 (1993); see also In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill.2d 1, 12, 196 Ill.Dec. 636, 630 N.E.2d 801 (1994), citing Faris v. Faris, 35 Ill.2d 305, 309, 220 N.E.2d 210 (1966); Lescher v. Barker, 57 Ill.App.3d 776, 779, 15 Ill.Dec. 535, 373 N.E.2d 1007 (1978) ("jurisdiction of the subjec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
51 cases
  • M.M., In re, Nos. 73377
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • August 26, 1993
    ...matter jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to adjudge concerning the general question involved (see Faris v. Faris (1966), 35 Ill.2d 305, 309, 220 N.E.2d 210), as well as the power to grant the particular relief requested (People ex rel. Rice v. Appellate Court (1971), 48 Ill.2d 1......
  • In re the Marriage of David Newton, Nos. 1–09–0683
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 30, 2011
    ...711 N.E.2d 10 (1999) (citing People v. Graves, 74 Ill.2d 279, 284–85, 24 Ill.Dec. 153, 384 N.E.2d 1311 (1979), quoting Faris v. Faris, 35 Ill.2d 305, 309, 220 N.E.2d 210 (1966)). “[E]xposing oneself ‘to a finding of contempt is an appropriate method of testing the validity of a court order.......
  • Belleville Toyota v. Toyota Motor Sales, No. 90340.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • March 15, 2002
    ...N.E.2d 474 (1965); Van Dam v. Van Dam, 21 Ill.2d 212, 216, 171 N.E.2d 594 (1961); 14 Ill. L. 16, at 183 (1968); see also Fans v. Faris, 35 Ill.2d 305, 309, 220 N.E.2d 210 (1966); Restatement (Second) of Judgments ž 11 (1982). With the exception of the circuit court's power to review adminis......
  • Health Cost Controls v. Sevilla, No. 1-98-1695.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 27, 1999
    ...N.E.2d 702 (1993); see also In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill.2d 1, 12, 196 Ill.Dec. 636, 630 N.E.2d 801 (1994), citing Faris v. Faris, 35 Ill.2d 305, 309, 220 N.E.2d 210 (1966); Lescher v. Barker, 57 Ill.App.3d 776, 779, 15 Ill.Dec. 535, 373 N.E.2d 1007 (1978) ("jurisdiction of the subjec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT