Child Law

Respondent appealed from a trial court order finding her minor children neglected under a theory of anticipatory neglect and adjudicating them wards of the state by finding that the respondent was unable to care for or protect the children. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court order was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where there was “ample” evidence that respondent had been unable to make progress toward reunification despite years of having her children in the care of DCFS. (LAVIN and COGHLAN, concurring)

Respondent appealed from a trial court order finding him to be an unfit parent and terminating his parental rights over his minor son. Respondent argued on appeal that the trial court’s findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State did not establish that he had failed ot maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility over his son, that he failed to make a reasonable effort to correct the conditions that were the basis for removal, and that he had demonstrated an intent to forgo his parental rights by failing to visit or communicate with his son. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where respondent failed to make any progress toward reunification during the relevant nine-month period and where respondent failed to visit the child or to communicate with the child agency for a period of 12 months. (HOWSE and ELLIS, concurring)

Respondent appealed from a trial court’s disposition order adjudicating her minor child a ward of the court after finding that the child was neglected due to an injurious environment. Respondent argued on appeal that she was denied a fair adjudication hearing based on cumulative error. The appellate court reversed the order finding that the minor was neglected, vacated the disposition order, and remanded for a new adjudication hearing, explaining that respondent was denied a fair hearing where the trial court conflated the adjudicatory and dispositional phases of the case. (ROCHFORD and MARTIN, concurring)

Respondent appealed from a trial court order denying her motion for a finding that the Department of Child and Family Services had not made efforts to prevent the removal of respondent’s minor child and to preserve unification of the family. The appellate court did not address the merits of the appeal, however, and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that no final judgment was entered in the ongoing proceedings and the trial court did not indicate in any of its rulings that its findings were immediately appealable within the meaning of SCR 304(a). (HOWSE and McBRIDE, concurring)

Petitioner appealed from a trial court order dismissing their amended petition to adopt a minor child and the denial of their motion for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the order denying the motion for visitation but reversed the order dismissing the amended petition for adoption and remanded for further proceedings, finding that section 1 of the Adoption Act includes first cousins once removed and, as a result, the petitioners were eligible for a related adoption under the Act. (HUTCHINSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring)

Respondent, a resident of a mental health center, appealed from a trial court order making respondent’s minor child a ward of the court because of the physical or mental disability of her parents left the child without proper care. Respondent argued that the trial court erred because respondent had a care plan in place. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court’s finding of an injurious environment based on a theory of anticipatory neglect was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court further found that the finding of dependency was supported by the evidence where both parents were in a mental health center without an imminent discharge date and were unable to care for their daughter and that a voluntary plan proposed by respondents was not in the best interest of the minor. (LYLE and NAVARRO, concurring)

Respondent appealed from a circuit court disposition order adjudicating her minor children wards of the court and finding that they were neglected and abused. Respondent argued on appeal that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss the wardship petitions rather than waive the 90-day time limit for the adjudicatory hearing to commence. The appellate court affirmed, finding that respondent could not establish the prejudice prong with regard to her ineffective assistance of counsel claim given the “overwhelming” evidence of medical neglect.  (ELLIS and COBBS, concurring)

Respondent filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to SCR 307(a)(1) seeking vacatur of an order preventing her from copying transcripts from dispositional and permanency hearings for her minor children and sharing them on social media sites. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly considered the confidentiality and privacy interests of the minor children in entering its order and, as a result, did not abuse its discretion. (HOFFMAN and MARTIN, concurring)

Respondent appealed from the circuit court orders finding that she was an unfit parent of her three minor children and that the termination of respondent’s parental rights would be in the children’s best interests. On appeal, respondent argued that the trial court's findings that she failed to make reasonable efforts, failed to make reasonable progress, failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, and exhibited habitual drunkenness or addition was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the evidence contained in the record established that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. (HARRIS and LANNERD, concurring)

Respondent appealed from the judgment of the circuit court terminating his parental rights to his minor daughter and allowing the petitioners to adopt her, arguing that the trial court erred when it found he was an unfit parent. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err in its finding that respondent was unfit because he failed to show a reasonable concern, interest, and responsibility for his daughter. The appellate court also rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court ruling was against public policy because it allegedly awarded petitioner for moving the litigation from Florida to Illinois. (McLAREN and KENNEDY, concurring)