Child Law

Court found Respondent father to be an unfit parent and terminated his parental rights to his son, age 5. Court did not violate Respondent's due process rights in denying his counsel's request for a continuance and held the proceedings in his absence when he was incarcerated. Respondent was represented by counsel who cross-examined State's witnesses and argued vigorously on his behalf. Base on strength of State's case, it is highly unlikely that Respondent's presence, in person or telephonically, would have made any difference to the outcome. Respondent pled guilty, in Wisconsin, to aggravated battery of his son, for inflicting over 576 bruises on the boy's body. (BIRKETT and ZENOFF, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 2/5/20.) Respondent, age 15, pled guilty to several felony offenses and was adjudicated delinquent, and sentenced him to a term in Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDOJJ). Court methodically considered the most viable alternatives to a term in IDOJJ, but dismissed them as possibilities because several previous attempts to impose these alternatives had failed. Court received evidence that Respondent had the individualized need of correcting his poor decision making, and received evidence that services for this purpose were available in the IDOJJ. Thus, court properly conducted the review mandated by the Juvenile Court Act. No plain error in court allowing Respondent to return the stolen property, rather than imposing a $500 restitution bill. (CARTER, concurring; McDADE, dissenting.)

Court found child to be a neglected minor due to an injurious environment. Court's determination of neglect was not exclusively premised on the past findings as to child's siblings. Two of Respondent mother's children provided statements that child's father smashed their cell phones, which is relevant to assessment of child's environment. Although evidence suggested that child was healthy and nourished and had not been physically injured, such evidence does not preclude a finding of neglect. By discussing issues with the parties' attorneys and indicating his position thereon, judge had made a substantive ruling int he siblings' proceeds and thus Respondent was prevented from exercising her right to a substitution of judge as of right in this case. (LAMPKIN and BURKE, concurring.)

Petitioner requested that the Court enter an order declaring the non-existence of a parental relationship after she informed the court and her guardian ad litem that the Responded might not be her biological father. Respondent argued that because Petitioner became aware that he might not be her biological father when she was 10 and did not petition the court until she was 13, her petition was untimely. The Illinois Parentage Act requires that the proceedings be brought within 2 years of when the petitioner knew or should have known about the facts that support the petition. Even though the Act allows for an action to be brought by a child, a child cannot bring a petition on their own until they are 18 or are represented by another party entitled to bring legal proceedings on their behalf. Therefore, the petition was not untimely because the minor did not have the legal capacity to bring a petition until she was appointed a guardian ad litem.  (HYMAN and PIERCE concurring.)

Plaintiff alleged that State's Attorney improperly denied his FOIA requests. Court properly granted summary judgment for Defendant. Plaintiff was convicted, after jury trial, of 1st-degree murder, as charged in indictment. It is undisputed that records Plaintiff initially sought did not exist at the time, and that Plaintiff eventually received them, as well as the grand jury transcript he requested; thus, Plaintiff could not maintain cause of action under FOIA. Section 112-6 of Code of Criminal Procedure prohibited disclosure of persons under investigation before grand jury, and of deliberations and vote of grand jury, triggering exemption in Section 7(1)(a) of FOIA.     (BIRKETT and HUDSON, concurring.)