Hulsh v. Hulsh

Summary

The Illinois Supreme Court held that Illinois does not recognize a tort for intentional interference with a parent’s custodial rights, even when the plaintiff seeks only economic losses incurred to recover custody. The court declined to adopt section 700 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, reasoning that creating such a cause of action is a legislative choice and that an existing federal remedy provided for recovery of necessary expenses. The court therefore affirmed dismissal of the custodial-interference and aiding-and-abetting claims for failure to state a claim.