Child Law

Dispute over custody of 6-year-old child who had been cared for  most of her life by an uncle and Susan, an unrelated person. Court erred by entering an order finding parents unfit when no party alleged them to be unfit. Court did not err in awarding sole decision-making authority and majority of parenting time to Susan, as evidence supports that this is in child's best interests. Court did consider presumption of superior rights that flows from father's biological relationship to child, and found that Susan had overcome this presumption. (GOLDENHERSH and CATES, concurring.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 2/28/18.) Court found respondent mother dispositionally unfit, made father sole guardian and custodian, and terminated wardship of minors. As mother had notice of permanency review hearing and testified at hearing, she had sufficient notice of proceedings, and court had authority to vacate mother's prior finding of fitness and enter order of unfitness based on evidence. Court made written factual findings as to father's fitness and reasonable efforts, which were sufficient to comply with requirements of section 2-31(2) of Juvenile Court Act. (CARTER and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Court's denial of Respondent minor's petition to terminate registration as a sex offender was against manifest weight of evidence. The risk assessment, evidence of rehabilitation, that Respondent was age 14 at time of offense, and Respondent's mental, physical, emotional, and social history factors each weigh firmly in favor of granting petition. Respondent met burden of showing, by preponderance of evidence, that he poses "no risk" to community.(CARTER and SCHMIDT, concurring.) 

Court terminated parental rights of Respondent father to infant daughter, who failed to call police when mother threw infant, then age 3 months, into a crib while having argument with Respondent. Court found that Respondent had an inability to discharge parental responsibilities due to intellectual and developmental disability, and that this inability would extend beyond a reasonable period of time. Evidence supports court's finding of unfitness. Defense counsel's cross-examination of clinical psychologist was objectively reasonable.(HOLDER WHITE, concurring; DeARMOND, specially concurring.)

Respondent mother had been found unfit as to her other children in a related ongoing proceeding.  Petitions filed in present case were substantively the same as prior petitions but included additional allegations that Respondent had failed to complete required services to restore her fitness in the prior, and ongoing, proceedings. Court provided Respondent with factual basis for its determination that she was unfit in present case.(CARTER and WRIGHT, concurring).

Court took wardship of minor upon allegations of neglect and injurious environment as mother had, 2 months prior to minor's birth, left minor's siblings in the care of minor's 14-year-old sibling while she left the state. Court found mother unfit but found father fit. Order of wardship was not against manifest weight of evidence, even though minor was in custody of father, given father's criminal history and that he and mother were arrested for  credit card fraud and possession of stolen property, and that parents were continuing their relationship.(CARTER and McDADE, concurring).

State filed neglect petition against minor's mother and father, alleging that minor was neglected as to medical care and in an injurious environment. At dispositional hearing, court found Respondent father to be a fit parent, and that father had not contributed to injurious environment, but ordered that minor not be returned home, and instead remain in foster care.  Once court made a finding that father was a fit parent, it was not authorized to make minor a ward of the court and place custody with DCFS. (SCHMIDT and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Respondent was voluntarily admitted for inpatient psychiatric care, and later filed a request to be discharge; on the same day, State filed petition for involuntary admission under Section 3-610 of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code. Proceedings on a petition for involuntary admission filed under Section 3-403 of Code may continue despite Respondent's withdrawing his request for discharge from voluntary admission. Any deficiencies in certificates attached to State's petition did not prevent court from adjudicating the petition. Testimony at hearing established that allegations of petition were brought in good faith. (HARRIS and KNECHT, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 1/25/18.) Minor defendant, then age 15, was charged in a 3-count petition for wardship, alleging 2 counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) and 1 count of unlawful possession of a firearm (UPF). The absence of presentation of a FOID card is insufficient to prove that a defendant actually lacked a FOID card; thus, finding of guilt on AUUW count is vacated. As defendant stated his birth date at arraignment and stipulated to juvenile jurisdiction, and testified at pretrial suppression hearing that he was 15, and did not object when officer testified that he was 15, evidence was sufficient to prove defendant's age. UPF count is vacated under the one-act, one-crime rule, as 3 counts were all based on possession of same handgun at same time. (BURKE and ELLIS, concurring.)