Child Law

Court terminated parental rights of Respondent father, finding him an unfit parent. There was no risk of an erroneous deprivation of Respondent's parental rights solely because court ordered that case be submitted for a legal screening where permanency goal remained returning home and DCFS was still obligated to provide reunification services. Thus, no violation of Respondent's due process rights as result of manner in which case was referred to legal screening. Court found that Respondent, during relevant 9-month period, failed to comply with service plans and court's directives, including drug screens; and his visits with minor became sporadic. Thus, court's finding that Respondent failed to make reasonable progress during that period was not against manifest weight of evidence. Court's finding that it was in minor's best interest to terminate Respondent's parental rights was not against manifest weight of evidence. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring; McDADE, specially concurring.)

Court adjudicated Respondent mother's 7 children as neglected due to injurious environment. Respondent's statements to caseworkers as to her mental health diagnoses were properly admitted as a statement by a party-opponent, as substantive evidence bearing on issue of whether minors were abused or neglected and adjudication of wardship. Respondent had many contacts with DCFS, did not complete service plans, threatened physical violence toward minors, and had altercations with some of the minors. Adjudication of neglect was not against manifest weight of evidence. (ROCHFORD and HOFFMAN, concurring.)

Mother of minor filed petition to change the minor's legal last name from that of the minor's father (an inmate in Department of Corrections) to that of the minor's stepfather. Court erred in finding that mother failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that name change was necessary to serve best interests of minor. Minor's father had broken in to mother's apartment after they ended dating relationship, and held mother hostage there, at gunpoint; child, then age 3 1/2, was present during incident. Nearly all evidence presented at hearing supported granting the petition; all of the statutory factors weighed in favor of granting the petition, and name change is necessary to serve the minor's best interest. (HOLDRIDGE and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

State filed petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging that Respondent, then 16, committed criminal sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse of a minor girl, then age 15. After bench trial, court adjudicated Respondent a delinquent minor. Defense counsel told court that a letter from Respondent's counsel alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Court should have conducted a Krankel hearing after announcing its findings and ultimate decision. In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, a parent may raise an ineffective assistance claim on behalf of his or her child who is a respondent. When a parent does so, the court is required to conduct a Krankel hearing. (KNECHT and TURNER, concurring.)