Child Law

Court found that Respondent father was unfit to parent his 3 minor children, and that it was in children's best interests that his parental rights be terminated. Court violated Respondent's due process rights when court, sua sponte, vacated his attorney's appointment before the unfitness hearing. Respondent was an active participant in court process prior to dispositional hearing, and his absences from hearings appear to coincide with criminal issues and an outstanding warrant. Respondent's counsel was present at every hearing. One 21-day continuance to comply with Rule 13(c) would not have been onerous burden on the State. Proceeding in Respondent's absence, but leaving intact counsel's appointment, would have alleviated State's concern that parent could delay unfitness or best-interests finding by refusing to cooperate or by failing to appear. (McLAREN and HUDSON, concurring.)

Respondent, a 17-year-old minor, was found guilty of criminal sexual abuse, after bench trial. Minor was adjudicated delinquent and sentenced to 18 months probation. Court denied minor's request for supervision. Court did not improperly consider minor's maintenance of innocence as an aggravating factor. Court's remarks at sentencing indicate that it considered minor's lack of contrition rather than a failure to plead guilty. Court stated repeatedly that it was basing minor's sentence on the evidence it heard at trial, which it found overwhelming and demonstrative of inexcusable conduct. (McBRIDE and REYES, concurring.)

Court found that State had proved allegations of abuse or neglect as to 2 of Respondent mother's 3 daughters, based on court's finding that Respondent mother's partner had sexually abused 1 of her daughters. Court based its finding on victim's outcry statements and the VSI (Victim-Sensitive Interview).Victim testified at trial, and was questioned by attorneys for Respondent and her partner, the State, and GAL, and answered all questions. Thus, because victim testified and was subject to cross-examination, her earlier statements did not need to be corroborated to serve as basis for findings of abuse and neglect. Court correctly noted that there were weaknesses in victim's trial testimony when she recanted her outcry. Respondent actively acquiesced in foresnsic interviewer's references to a study of child recantation, despite lack of testimony as to the study's foundational details. (BIRKETT and HUTCHINSON, concurring.)

Respondent, age 17 at time of adjudicatory hearing, was found delinquent after court found him guilty of criminal sexual abuse of an 8 year old girl when he was 11. Court sentenced him to 24 months probation and required him to register as a sex offender. Accepting victim's testimony as true, State failed to present evidence that Respondent's actions were motivated by anything other than preadolescent curiosity. No rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Respondent acted wiht the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal.(O'BRIEN and WRIGHT, concurring.) 

State filed a petition and a supplemental petition for adjudication of delinquency and wardship, alleging that the minor, then age 15, had committed various offenses including burglary to a motor vehicle and unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle.  The circuit court ordered the minor detained on three separate occasions.  Juvenile Court Act plainly sets forth the criteria the court is to consider in making a finding as to immediate and urgent necessity.  Court declined to make an authoritative determination for future guidance under the public interest exception to mootness.  (HOLDER WHITE and DeARMOND, concurring.)

Respondent minor was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and unlawful possession of a firearm. Minor was sentenced to 3 years probation, and probation conditions included school attendance, community service, individual and family counseling,no gang contact, and tattoo removal.Court's gang-related restrictions on minor's activity, contacts, and social media usage were valid because they related to her rehabilitation. Restriction on gang contact and activity was not so overbroad as to be unreasonable. Court's condition requiring her to remove her facial tattoo of a crown, symbolizing allegiance to the Latin Kings gang, was valid because it related to her rehabilitation. Remanded to clarify order as to removal of her other 2 tattoos.(ROCHFORD and HOFFMAN, concurring.)

Court found respondent father unfit as infant's parent due to depravity, and that it was in infant's best interest to terminate his parental rights. State presented evidence that DCFS had made indicated findings of abuse and neglect against respondent as to several of his other children; and that he had history of domestic violence as to prior paramours and children, and that he had history of alcohol abuse, failure to remain free of alcohol and drug use,  and failure to cooperate with services. Finding of unfitness and best-interest determination were not against manifest weight of evidence. (BURKE and SPENCE, concurring.)