Child Law

Consolidated appeals involving 8 minors ranging in age from 3 to 16 years old. After adjudicatory hearing, court entered orders finding each of the minors was neglected, based on a lack of care and an injurious environments. After dispositional hearings, court found that the biological other of 7 of the 8 minors, and the biological father of 2 of the minors, were unable and/or unwilling to care for the children. Court improperly based its findings of neglect on hearsay evidence that biological mother was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Without this foundation, evidence that mother refused to receive mental health treatment lacked relevance and was also inadmissible. Net effect of these errors was not harmless. Based on evidence that was presented, court's finding of neglect was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Remanded for new adjudicatory hearing. (PIERCE and HARRIS, concurring.)

Juvenile court, as condition of probation for an adjudicated delinquent minor's own protection, required removal of any references to gangs, guns, or drugs on minor's social media accounts. Minor, age 16, was found guilty of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, unlawful possession of cannabis, and unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver. Minor had admitted gang membership. This content-based restriction on speech passes strict scrutiny, as it is narrowly tailored to the 3 topics closely related to his crimes, as a means of preventing him from further criminal acts. State has a compelling interest in restricting social media and related activity to protect adjudicated delinquent minors from destructive and antisocial influences and prevent reoffending. (PUCINSKI, concurring; NEVILLE, dissenting.)

Court adjudicated Respondent minor, now age 15, delinquent upon allegations that Respondent committed aggravated criminal sexual assault and criminal sexual assault against his 7-year-old nephew. Court allowed victim to testify by whispering to the judge answers to State’s direct examination, and the judge then stating aloud what victim had whispered to him.  This ad hoc courtroom procedure was a clear and obvious violation of Respondent’s right to confrontation. Court was presented with opposing versions of events with no extrinsic evidence to corroborate or contradict either version. Error in procedure precluded Respondent from opportunity to hear victim’s testimony to determine whether his answers should be subject to cross-examination, and directly impacted Respondent’s ability to contest victim’s credibility. (TURNER and HARRIS, concurring.)

Minor Respondent was adjudicated delinquent for armed robbery with a firearm. Court’s imposition of the gang-related probation conditions, to “stay away” from and have “no contact” with gangs, and to clear all his social media of postings with gang members, was overly broad and thus not exercised in a reasonable manner. Remanded for court to consider whether such restrictions are still warranted, and if so, what appropriate exceptions for familiar, employment, and school contacts should be applied. Viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, it was not so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory that no rational trier of fact could have found that Respondent was armed with a firearm during commission of robbery. (HOWSE and LAVIN, concurring.)

Court adjudicated all 4 of Respondent mother's minor children neglected. Court did not deprive Respondent of due process by, when best interest portion of hear resumed and after all parties had rested, re-opening proofs and allowing additional testimony from therapist. GAL called therapist who testified as to minor's adoption preferences. Court's decision that it was in minor's best interest to terminate Respondent's parental rights was not against manifest weight of evidence. Court considered Respondent's pattern of abusing alcohol and exposing minor to domestic violence. (KNECHT and HOLDER WHITE, concurring.)

Respondent, a delinquent minor, was found in violation of his misdemeanor probation sentence and on 4/26/16 he was ordered to be committed to Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Amendment to Section 5-710 of Juvenile Court Act, effective 1/1/16, which precludes trial court from committing a minor to DJJ for a misdemeanor offense, did not prevent court from committing Respondent to DJJ for violation of probation, as the amendment occurred subsequent to date of initial sentencing on underlying offense. Respondent failed to appear at his 12/15 sentencing hearing, and he was not arrested until after effective date of amendment. (FREEMAN, GARMAN, and THEIS, concurring; THOMAS, specially concurring; BURKE and KILBRIDE, specially concurring.)