Child Law

After allegation of abuse by their father, Jaime D., a 5-year-old boy and his 2 sisters were placed in temporary custody of DCFS. A DNA test then showed that Jaime D. was not the boy's father. Mother testified that a different man was the boy's father. Based on Jaime D.'s having signed a Voluntary Acknowledgement of Parentage (VAP), court named him as the boy's father. Boy, through public guardian, filed petition to allow the other man to remain a party and reserve his right to adjudicate his as his father; or alternatively, to adjudicate him as his legal parent. a asked No final paternity finding had ben entered that would bar boy from raising it later. Neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel applies. (PUCINSKI, concurring; MASON, concurring.)

Court's findings, that minor was a neglected minor and that Respondent father was unfit, were not against manifest weight of evidence. Mother was unwilling to cooperate with services and had ongoing pattern of substance abuse, engaged in domestic violence in front of her other children, and showed a lack of desire to parent the minor. Father is incarcerated and has a history of criminal behavior and mental health concerns. Although not all of father's prior convictions were for violent offenses, his ongoing commitment to criminality helps establish an injurious environment.(HOLDRIDGE and SCHMIDT, concurring.)

Minor was charged with delivery of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Court properly suppressed statement minor made at police station. Minor was under age 18 when alleged offenses were committed and statement at issue was made at a police station, when minor was subject to a custodial interrogation. As the custodial interrogation was not electronically recorded as required by Section 5-401.5(b) of Juvenile Court Act, statement is presumptively inadmissible. Court erred in suppressing statement he made at his high school. School personnel were not "other public officials or employees" and thus were not required to precede their questioning of minor with statement and questions set forth in Section 5-401(a-5) of Juvenile Court Act. (SCHOSTOK and SPENCE, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 10/3/18.) Court found parents (one mother and two fathers) unfit, terminated their parental rights, and found it was in best interests of minors to appoint a guardian with the right to consent to their adoption. Court's adjudication, unfitness and best interests determinations were not against manifest weight of the evidence. Expedited termination of fathers' parental rights was proper. No error in court considering wishes of children as to where they wanted to live. No ineffective assistance of counsel, as mother was not prejudiced by any alleged error as to court's interviews with minors.(HOFFMAN and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Parental rights of both mother and father of minor child were terminated. Court denied parents due process when it relied on impermissible hearsay in DCFS investigatory report, which was an exhibit used at adjudicatory hearing. Report contained substantial amounts of information which was unverified and lacked any supporting documentation. Court found father dispositionally unfit, but court lacked information that father could properly care for minor, as he had not participated in an integrated assessment or filed for custody and was unfit in the eyes of circuit court. (CARTER and LYTTON, concurring.)

Court found infant to be a ward of the court and vested guardianship of him in DCFS. Respondent father is also a minor. Juvenile Court Act does not require service upon parents of a Respondent minor who is not the subject of the underlying proceeding. An incarcerated defendant may submit to jurisdiction of court through participation. Respondent's parents were not necessary parties, as they did not have custody or control of infant. (CAVANAGH, concurring; HOLDER WHITE, specially concurring.)

Minor was adjudicated abused and neglected based on allegations that Respondent, her father, sexually abused her. Court found Respondent unfit and terminated his parental rights. State successfully raised statutory rebuttable presumption that Respondent was depraved, as he had at least 5 felony convictions within 5 years of filing of petition. Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for minor's removal, and defied his obligation to comply with service plan.(HOLDRIDGE and SCHMIDT, concurring.)