Child Law

Circuit court found Sections 5-101(3) and 5-605(1) of Juvenile Court Act, which do not provide jury trials for 1st-time juvenile offenders charged with 1st degree murder, violate equal protection clauses of U.S. and Illinois Constitutions, as applied to Respondent minor., then age 14. Respondent minor cannot show that she is similarly situated to the comparison groups of recidivist offenders, as they are not similarly situated to her, as they are charged with different crimes, have different criminal backgrounds, and are tried and sentenced under different statutes. Due process does not require jury trials in juvenile proceedings. (KARMEIER, FREEMAN, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, and THEIS, concurring.)

Court found Respondent father to be an unfit parent and terminated his parental rights. Respondent was incarcerated for conviction for aggravated DUI, and sentenced to 8 years, and he remained incarcerated at all relevant times. Respondent's incarceration did not prevent him from complying with service plan, but he failed to apply for substance abuse assessment and treatment. Court's finding of unfitness on that basis, and finding that termination of his parental rights was in children's best interests, were not against manifest weight of evidence. (HUTCHINSON and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Respondent, age 14, was charged with 2 counts of attempted murder and related offenses in connection with shooting of 2 persons who were ambushed and shot in the head while sitting on a porch in the afternoon. One of the victims identified Respondent as the shooter. State's case rested entirely on testimony of that victim, whose significant discrepancies and inconsistencies in his testimony  compromised his credibility.Neither that victim's identification of Respondent nor his testimony about circumstances of interviews with police was supported by any corroborating evidence. Thus, State's evidence was so unsatisfactory as to justify reasonable doubt of Respondent's guilt. (McBRIDE and HOWSE, concurring.)

Court affirmed final administrative decision denying Plaintiff's request to expunge indicated finding of neglect entered against him per Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act. Record contains ample evidence supporting ALJ's finding that Plaintiff abused the mother of their minor children in presence of children. Due to frequency, severity, and pervasiveness of Plaintiff's abuse of mother and children's young age when exposed to that abuse, ALJ could reasonably find that home environment would likely harm their well-being. (HOFFMAN and DELORT, concurring)

Court erred in dismissal of minor Respondent's petition to terminate registration as a sex offender. Section 7 of Sex Offender Registration Act empowers Director of State Police to "extend" registration period but does not authorize Director to order a new registration period. Thus a juvenile registrant may file a section 3-5 petition to terminate registration 5 years or more after original order was entered under Subsection 3-5(a), even if the registration period was extended under Section 7. As more than 5 years elapsed from Respondent's 2004 order sentencing him to probation for criminal sexual assault, Respondent had the right, under Section 3-5(c ), to file petition to terminate registration in 2016. (CARTER and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Court entered order terminating parental rights of respondent father to his 3 minor children, based on depravity, as Respondent had been found guilty, after jury trial, of 1st-degree murder by strangulation of the children's mother.  Unfitness determination may not be postpoined on the basis of the udnerlying criminal conduct being under appellate review. Finding of unfitness based on depravity is not against manifest weight of evidence. (McLAREN and ZENOFF, concurring.)