SB1642 amends Section 602.9 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which governs visitation rights for certain non-parents. The bill keeps the existing framework for petitions by grandparents, great-grandparents, siblings, and step-parents, including the requirement that a parent’s denial of visitation must be unreasonable and must cause undue mental, physical, or emotional harm to the child. It also preserves the current list of factors a court must consider when deciding whether to grant visitation, such as the child’s wishes, the parties’ health, the prior relationship, and the good faith of the parties.
The substantive change made by SB1642 is to require courts, when evaluating visitation petitions, to also consider whether there are any other facts showing that loss of the relationship is likely to harm the child. In effect, the bill adds an explicit catch-all factor emphasizing potential harm from severing the relationship between the child and the non-parent petitioner. The bill does not create a new category of petitioners or eliminate existing parental presumptions; it adjusts the court’s analysis within the current visitation statute.
Impact
If enacted, SB1642 would modify Illinois family law by amending the standards courts use in non-parent visitation cases under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. The change would apply to visitation petitions involving grandparents, great-grandparents, siblings, and step-parents, and would slightly broaden the statutory factors courts must weigh by adding an express requirement to consider any other facts showing likely harm from loss of the relationship. The bill would affect circuit court decision-making in custody/visitation disputes but would not otherwise alter adoption, parentage, or juvenile court provisions.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available record suggests a neutral-to-supportive policy posture focused on preserving important family relationships for children. The bill’s framing indicates concern for child welfare and continuity of relationships with close relatives or step-parents. Because there are no transcripts or vote results provided, there is no documented public debate in the materials about support or opposition.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the balance between a fit parent’s decision-making authority and a court’s willingness to order visitation for non-parents. The bill retains the rebuttable presumption that a fit parent’s decisions are not harmful, but by adding another factor related to likely harm from loss of the relationship, it may be viewed by critics as incrementally expanding judicial discretion in family disputes. Supporters would likely argue that the change better protects children who have strong bonds with grandparents, siblings, or step-parents, while opponents may worry it could make it easier for non-parents to challenge parental visitation decisions.
Provides that a great-grandparent may apply to the supreme court for visitation rights with respect to certain minor great-grandchildren where either or both of the parents of such child is or are deceased.