Child Law

The appellate court considered the question of how to proceed in a child protection case where the identity of the father was not discovered until after the child had been in foster care for many years and the goal for the child had already been established as termination of parental rights. The majority agreed with the State’s argument that there was at least one clear basis, the father’s repeated incarcerations, on which to terminated the father’s rights that was unaffected by his late identification and affirmed the termination decision of the circuit court. (McBRIDE, concurring and ELLIS, dissenting)

Respondent appealed from a circuit court order granting the State’s petition for adjudication of wardship on the grounds that respondent had sexually abused her minor child. The State’s evidence at the hearing on the petition consisted of witnesses who spoke with the minor, but the minor did not testify. On appeal, respondent argued that the trial court erred in allowing the hearsay testimony without independent evidence that corroborated the minor’s hearsay claims. The appellate court agreed and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. (VAN TINE and McBRIDE, concurring)

Respondent appealed from the circuit court’s adjudication and disposition rulings finding that his minor child was neglected due to lack of care and an injurious environment and adjudging the minor as a ward of the court. Respondent argued on appeal that the rulings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the finding of neglect due to an injurious environment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where there was evidence that the minor suffered physical injuries and lack of appropriate medical care and that the trial court did not err in its dispositional ruling where respondent had completed some but not all recommended services. (McBRIDE and D.B. WALKER, concurring)

Respondent appealed from a circuit court order terminating her parental rights on the grounds that she had failed to demonstrate a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for the children and failed to make reasonable progress toward the children’s return to her care within several nine-month periods. On appeal, respondent argued that the trial court violated her statutory right to counsel and denied her due process when it granted her attorney’s motion to withdraw and compelled her to proceed to trial without counsel. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err where the attorney was respondent’s fifth attorney and where she had been informed that additional counsel would not be appointed. (MARTIN and ROCHFORD, concurring)

Respondent appealed from a circuit court adjudication of wardship of a minor child in a medical neglect case, arguing that the court improperly admitted a child abuse and proactive services report under the business records exception to the hearsay rules, that the finding of neglect at the adjudicatory hearing was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the court erred in finding that respondent violated an order of protection. The appellate court vacated the trial court orders finding the minor neglected and the respondent in violation of a protective order and remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing, explaining that it agreed with the respondent’s argument that the hearing was “rushed, vague, and incomplete” and that it did not constitute a true adversarial hearing where the State did not put on sufficient substantive evidence and where the circuit court ruled in favor of the State minutes after the admission of nearly 5,000 pages of medical records. (D.B. WALKER, concurring and VAN TINE, dissenting)