Catholic Charities loses ruling on foster care

[Orleans_Attny]

Judge rules state is not obligated to renew agencies’ contracts

A Sangamon County judge ruled Thursday that the state can decline to renew its contracts with Catholic Charities in Illinois to provide publicly funded foster care and adoption services, meaning the process of transferring children to other social service agencies can proceed.

In a packed courtroom just one day earlier, lawyers for Catholic Charities urged Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt to prevent the state from suddenly severing a partnership that has funded foster care and adoption services in Illinois for four decades.

But Schmidt wrote in his ruling released Thursday that the longevity of the relationship between the state and Catholic Charities in Joliet, Peoria, Springfield and Belleville did not entitle them to automatic renewal of their contracts.

“No citizen has a recognized legal right to a contract with the government,” Schmidt wrote.

More in the LINK

Pax,
OA

 

[Dale_M]

I am not a lawyer, but the property rights argument seemed rather weak. I guess I guess I am not surprised by the judge’s ruling.

But why did he set aside the religious liberty issue? That really seems to be the heart of the matter.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

I am not a lawyer, but the property rights argument seemed rather weak. I guess I guess I am not surprised by the judge’s ruling.

But why did he set aside the religious liberty issue? That really seems to be the heart of the matter.

Maybe because he could dispose of an issue without reaching the constitutional question, and perhaps he decided that even if he ruled for Catholic Charities on the religious freedom issue that doesn’t compel the state to enter into a contract with them.

My suspicion is that he ruled that contracts are mutual agreements, and this one included an expiration date, and you (Catholic Charities) have to suffer with the deal you made. Imagine if you were a landlord and you let a home to a woman for 10 years. After ten years, you retire and decide you want to move into that house. So you decide not to renew her lease. Absent a contract provision, she doesn’t have the ability to win a lawsuit to force you to continue to let to her - just because you’d let to her in the past and she’d come to count on it.

Pax,
OA

 

[wisdomseeker]

Judge rules state is not obligated to renew agencies’ contracts

More in the LINK

Pax,
OA

What is the Catholics doing in the secular court? what do they expect to gain? they should be in their knees before the Courts of Heaven and not pagan courts. go figure.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

What is the Catholics doing in the secular court? what do they expect to gain? they should be in their knees before the Courts of Heaven and not pagan courts. go figure.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

Pax,
OA

 

[Rence]

I am not a lawyer, but the property rights argument seemed rather weak. I guess I guess I am not surprised by the judge’s ruling.

But why did he set aside the religious liberty issue? That really seems to be the heart of the matter.

I don’t think Catholic Charities concentrated on the religious liberty issue in their case against the State. The actual litigation issue was that Catholic Charities wanted the judge to force the State to renew their contract with the State, on the grounds that the State never gave them a warning that their contract wouldn’t be renewed, and on the ground that the State has had a contract with Catholic Charties for years and years. But when you contract with the State, there is never a guarantee that the State has to renew one’s contract. That’s part of bidding for a contract.