Child Law

Mother of a child who was adjudicated a neglected minor appealed trial court order ceasing court monitoring of the family and granting sole custody of the minor to his father with the mother limited to supervised clinical visitation. The mother challenged the order, in part, because the hearing was conducted remotely, arguing she had a statutory right to be physically present at adjudicatory and dispositional hearings. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the circuit court properly balanced the mother’s request for an in-person hearing with the public health emergency resulting from the coronavirus pandemic. (REYES and MARTIN, concurring)

Minor was adjudicated neglected after being diagnosed with failure to thrive syndrome while in the care of her grandparents. Trial court entered dispositional order finding it was in the minor’s best interest to be made a ward of the court and granting guardianship to DCFS. Court further ordered the grandparents remain parties to the case and ordered DCFS to provide services. Appellate court reversed order permitting grandparents to remain parties explaining once guardianship was placed with DCFS they were no longer responsible relatives and were not proper parties to the case. The appellate court otherwise affirmed judgment of the trial court. (KNECHT and HOLDER WHITE, concurring)

Court adjudicated minor and minor's siblings to be abused and neglected minors, and made the minors wards of the court. Appellate court reversed the findings of abuse and neglect, and remanded the case for compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. Appellate court misapplied the law and facts and erred in reversing findings of abuse and neglect. Case must be remanded for proof of compliance with Indian Child Welfare Act. There is no evidence as to what has transpired in connection with State having sent notification to Bureau of Indian Affairs in 2019. Trial court's conclusion that mother was unable, at time of dispositional hearing, to parent the children was not against manifest weight of evidence. Trial court's finding that minor's birth issues had resolved by the time of the head injuries was not against manifest weight of evidence. State proved that minor was a victim of abusive head trauma, and trial court's finding that minor was physically abused was not against manifest weight of evidence. (GARMAN, THEIS, NEVILLE, M. BURKE, OVERSTREET, and CARTER, concurring.)

Respondent minor was charged with aggravated vehicular hijacking, unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle, aggravated unlawful use of weapon, and misdemeanor theft in amended petition for adjudication of wardship. Petition alleged that the hijacking was committed in Missouri, and referenced Missouri Criminal Code provision for 1st degree robbery. Petition charged Respondent under Juvenile Court Act for the other offenses, and alleged that they were committed  in Illinois. The jurisdictional issue is governed by section 5-120 of the Act, which states in section 5-120 that jurisdiction is proper regardless of where the act occurred. Thus, the legislature has specifically excluded a requirement to prove the location of the offense. The Act conveys upon circuit court broad authority to exercise judicial power over violations listed in the statutes so as to bring a juvenile under guardianship of the State. Court erred in dismissing charge of aggravated vehicular hijacking. (MOORE and VAUGHAN, concurring.)

Minor was placed in temporary custody of DCFS when he was 3 weeks old based on allegations that he was a neglected minors, stemming from actions or omissions by minor's mother. Minor was then adjudged a neglected minor. Respondent sought custody of minor after learning that he was minor's father. Respondent was the non-custodial parent and bore no responsibility for minor be adjudged a neglected minor, and DCFS ordered no services for him. State bore the burden of proving that father was able to care for, protect, train, or discipline minor, and little investigation was done on this issue. Evidence did not support court's finding that father was unable to care for minor. (REYES and MARTIN, concurring.)

Court entered order of termination of parental rights (TPR) to 3 of Respondent mother's children. Mother asserted that conducting part of the TPR trial on Zoom violated her rights to effective assistance of counsel, confrontation, and due process. Mother was represented by counsel and had opportunity to be present, to be heard, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses against her. Important state interests in welfare of minors and safely resolving the case amidst a global pandemic are present and are served by conducting trial via Zoom rather than in person. Hearing complied with procedural due process and was in conformity with Rule 241. Court properly took steps to safeguard integrity of proceeds and parties' rights, by allowing mother to confer with counsel in breakout rooms, and ensuring that witnesses were alone and not referring to documents while testifying. (PUCINSKI and WALKER, concurring.)

Plaintiff filed suit for damages arising from motor vehicle accident. In a case where suit was dismissed for want of prosecution (DWP) after expiration of statute of limitations and plaintiff did not attempt service before the DWP, a trial court may not consider the overall lapse of time in obtaining service of process when the DWP is vacated and service obtained on the 1st attempt at the address known to the plaintiff from inception of suit. Rule 103(b) does not measure a party's diligence between dismissal and refiling; it measures diligence in effectuating service of a pending civil suit. (McDADE, concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.)

Court found Respondent mother unfit and found that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of her minor children. State's evidence from a limited 9-month period (which time included the first 8 months of the COVID-19 pandemic) was not so compelling as to permit the conclusion, by clear and convincing evidence, that totality of mother's conduct across 42 months showed an unreasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility in the welfare of her children. Court's finding to that effect was contrary to manifest weight of evidence. State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that mother's efforts to correct the conditions that led to her separation from the children were unreasonable. State failed to prove mother unfit on any grounds under the Adoption Act. (O'BRIEN, concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.)