Child Law

In juvenile proceedings, court made a finding it was not in the best interest of or appropriate with the permanency goad that minor be returned to foster home. Former foster parents do not have any rights to continue to foster the minor, and thus they cannot show any prejudice they would suffer as a result of court ruling. Former foster parents lack standing to bring appeal of dismissal, by trial court, of their administrative appeal. (McDADE and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Court granted petition for termination of parental rights, finding Respondent father unfit. Court applied wrong standard of proof in its depravity determination, which foreclosed any additional argument as to Respondents alleged depravity, such as that Respondent had reset his moral compass while in prison by earning his GED, and by taking classes and by his plan to take more classes upon release. Thus, remanded for a new unfitness hearing.(CARTER and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Minor Respondent, then age 16, was found guilty of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon after bench trial in juvenile court, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Among conditions of probation was that Respondent was to have no contact with gangs, guns, or drugs, and to clear his social media of anything that looks like gangs, guns, or drugs, and to disable feature allowing others to “tag” him in a social-media post.  The no-gang-contact condition is vacated, as it     The social-media condition is affirmed, as it does not place an unreasonable burden on his first-amendment rights , is reasonably related to minor's rehabilitative needs, and is well within the constitutional limits of the juvenile court's authority.  (BURKE, concurring; GORDON, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

After bench trial in juvenile court, 17-year-old Respondent was found guilty of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) and unlawful possession of a firearm (UPF). Among Respondents conditions of probation was that no illegal gang, guns, and drug activity be displayed on his social media, and that Respondent refrain from illegal gang activity. Prohibition on gang activity is not unconstitutionally vague. Order as to social media was reasonable and did not unreasonably burden Respondents first-amendment rights. (McBRIDE, concurring; GORDON, specially concurring.) 

After bench trial, minor Respondent was adjudicated delinquent of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and unlawful possession of a weapon and committed to Department of Juvenile Justice for indeterminate period of time. Respondent was seized when police officers arrived on scene and positioned their unmarked squad car diagonally in front of idling vehicle, stopped in a no parking zone, in which Respondent was a passenger and then surrounded vehicle. Odor of cannabis emanating from vehicle afforded officers with reasonable suspicion required to justify seizure. Decriminalization of marijuana is not synonymous with legalization, so that case law holding that odor of marijuana is indicative of criminal activity remains viable. Court properly denied Respondents motion to suppress. Officers testimony that Respondent never showed him a valid FOID card that that Respondent did not have and had not been issued a valid FOID card, although without explanation, was sufficient evidence that Respondent had not been issued a valid FOID card. (MASON and HYMAN, concurring.)

Respondent was adjudicated a delinquent minor by reason of his commission of 1 count of armed robbery with sentence of 2 years probation and 40 hours community service.  Probation conditions, that Respondent have no gang contact and not post anything related to a gang on social media, were overbroad and unreasonable. Court failed to provide a fair process for determining what gang-related restrictions on contact and social media usage were reasonable.(CONNORS and DELORT, concurring.)