Child Law

The Department of Children and Family Services sought to remove a minor from the home of his foster mother, who intervened in the matter and sought a hearing on the necessity and appropriateness of the move. The trial court initially stayed the removal to allow briefing and a hearing on the issue, but subsequently lifted the stay before the hearing was conducted. Intervenor appealed the trial court’s decision to lift the stay. The appellate court vacated the lifting of the stay and remanded for further proceedings, finding that where there were no safety concerns the trial court should have stayed the removal and conducted a full hearing prior to lifting the stay. (McLAREN and BIRKETT, concurring)

Respondent appealed from the trial court’s orders terminating her parental rights and granting the State the power to consent to the adoption of respondent’s minor child. Respondent argued on appeal that the trial court’s order was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the trial court erred when it found DCFS made reasonable efforts to effectuate the goals of its service plan and that the services provided to her were inadequate considering her language barriers, individual needs, and disability. The appellate court affirmed finding, among other things, that the trial court’s findings that respondent had failed to make reasonable progress were “clearly supported by the evidence” and that while respondent made efforts to complete the required services, she did not make reasonable progress toward reunification. (LAMPKIN and HOFFMAN, concurring)

Respondent appealed from the trial court’s dispositional order finding that she was unable to care for her minor child, and argued that the trial court’s finding of abuse based on substantial risk of physical injury was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court found no error because the trial court properly took into account the markers of emotional and mental abuse as well as respondent’s history of mental health and substance abuse issues and affirmed. (FITZGERALD SMITH and ELLIS, concurring)

Consolidated appeals of 10 cases arising from the circuit court’s orders finding the director of DCFS in indirect civil contempt of court for not finding appropriate placements for each of the minors in question as ordered by the circuit court. On appeal, the director argued that the circuit court erred by finding that he should be held in indirect civil contempt, by finding that a consent decree entered in an unrelated case did not bar the court from finding him in contempt, and by finding that a proposed placement did not purge the contempt finding because the court found it was not an appropriate placement. The appellate court reversed the judgments of the circuit court, finding that the evidence did not support a conclusion that the director “willfully ignored” the trial court’s orders merely because DCFS’s efforts to find appropriate placements for the children were ineffective and lacked an appropriate sense of urgency. (HOFFMAN and DELORT, concurring)

An appeal involving two questions certified pursuant to SCR 308(a): “Does the court have the authority under 89 Ill. Adm. Code 328[.3](b)(1), when asked by DCFS to approve an out-of-state move, to find it is not in the child’s best interest to move out-of-state and prevent the move,” and “Does the court have the authority under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, 705 ILCS 405/2-28(2.5), to find it is not in the best interest of a child to move out-of-state because the court determines that the child’s planned placement is not necessary or appropriate?” The appellate court answered both questions in the affirmed. The appellate court further reversed the trial court’s denial of DCFS’s motion to place the minor out-of-state because the ruling did not comply with the requirements of section 2-28(2.5) of the Juvenile Court Act and remanded for further proceedings. (McBRIDE and GORDON, concurring)

Case arising out of a petition for wardship filed by the State alleging that a minor infant was neglected and had injuries that were the result of non-accidental trauma. After a lengthy adjudicatory hearing, the trial court found that the State had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the minor was neglected or abused. However, the trial court reversed this finding after the public guardian filed a motion to reconsider. The minor’s father appealed and argued that there was no basis to grant the motion to reconsider. The appellate court agreed and reversed, finding that the trial court’s finding of neglect was against the manifest weight of the evidence. (ODEN JOHNSON and MITCHELL, concurring)