House Republicans Exploit Child's Death to Mislead Public About Pretrial Release

The Briefing

On November 6, 2024, police responding to a 911 call found a father conducting chest compressions on his two-year-old child. Soon after, the child died. The parents were charged with felony endangerment of a child and, after a hearing, the judge presiding over their case granted the State’s Petition to Detain. In January 2025, after conducting additional hearings, the Court ordered them released to home confinement (with electronic monitoring) with conditions (including regular drug testing and treatment), concluding that these conditions would mitigate any safety risk. The parents complied with all court orders and appeared in court as directed. Nevertheless, when the State increased the charges to murder, they filed a petition to deny pretrial release, which the Court denied after a contested hearing because the parents had demonstrated that they could comply with conditions of release.

Instead of reflecting on how a tragedy like this could happen and what we can do to prevent such deaths, the Illinois House Republicans promptly took to FaceBook, falsely claiming that the Pretrial Fairness Act prevented the Court from ordering the parents to jail pending trial. This is not only untrue, but an examination of the case reflects that the judges who presided over the case appropriately applied the law and determined that the parents could safely be released.

The judges who ordered detention and then later released the parents conducted lengthy hearings in which both parties presented evidence and argument. Both parents have substance use disorders, which they are trying to overcome: the mother entered an in-patient treatment program while the father received intensive outpatient treatment. Both submit to regular drug testing and have not resumed using drugs; the parents have both appeared in court as required and have not committed any new offense. 

Every aspect of this case is tragic: the parents were struggling with substance use and their home was unsafe. Now, the parents are dealing with the loss of their child and their own potential culpability in that terrible event. The couple lost custody of another child, who was sent to New York to live with her biological father, as a result. No one involved will be the same.

It is a deeply human impulse to want to punish people we believe have caused grievous and unnecessary harm, especially in a case that involves the death of a child. And that is, in part, what a sentence is for: a sentence that is given by a judge once a case is tried and after a person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the question is safety and flight risk, and no evidence suggests that the parents are a threat to either.

We hope opponents of a fair, risk-based pretrial system will stop using these tragedies to push their political agenda. It does not make our communities safer and only serves to distract from the needs of this hurting family and their surviving child.