Child Law

Respondent, a high school freshman, was adjudicated to be a delinquent minor and was committed to Department of Juvenile Justice. Court failed to review statutorily required evidence before ordering minor's commitment. It would have been practicable to perform investigation into educational background of the minor, including whether ever assessed for a learning disability, and whether any disciplinary incidents. School records can be obtained by court order. (STEIGMANN and POPE, concurring.)

Respondent, then age 17, claimed that State improperly used peremptory challenges to strike prospective black jurors during jury selection in his delinquency proceedings. Appellate court had, in earlier opinion, found that the trial court had improperly collapsed the second and third stages of the Batson hearing, e State improperly used peremptory challenges to strike prospective black jurors during jury selection in his delinquency proceedings. In hearing on remand, Respondent sustained his burden to show, as to one juror, that the State’s proffered race-neutral reason was pretextual. (PIERCE, concurring; NEVILLE, specially concurring.)

Respondent minor, under age 17, was adjudicated delinquent, and dispositional order of commitment was entered as to sexual acts committed against minor under age 9. Two counts arise from same act, and thus one of those counts must be vacated. As to 2 other counts, neither offense was a lesser-included offense of the other, and thus both adjudications of delinquency upheld. As to 3 other counts, they were 3 separate crimes on 3 separate occasions, and it was not necessary to commit one crime in order to commit the other. Thus, all 3 of those adjudications upheld. (LYTTON and SCHMIDT, concurring.)

Respondent, a 13-year-old minor, was charged as a juvenile with 2 counts of possession of a controlled substance, based on illegal drugs which police officers confiscated from Respondent's person. A 13-year-old would not have believed he could have denied officer's 2 requests to "come here" and avoid police without raising further suspicion. Thus, Respondent did not consent to police encounter; but his violation of curfew ordinance made intrusion reasonable, given Respondent's young age and late hour.(HOFFMAN and CUNNINGHAM, concurring.)

Respondents, mother and father, admitted and stipulated to State's petition for adjudication of wardship of 2 minor children. Court entered adjudicatory order finding minors neglected. Court found father unfit to care for either minor, and found mother unfit to care for younger child (an infant); and found mother fit to care for older child. Respondent father has standing to contest court's finding as to mother's fitness to care for older child. Court's dispositional findings are not against manifest weight of evidence, as recent observations indicated mother made improvements in her parenting and safety of home. (TURNER and POPE, concurring.)

Court erred in finding Respondent father an unfit parent. State failed to prove unfitness on ground of depravity. State failed to raise rebuttable presumption of depravity, as Respondent's 3 felony convictions were entered 8 years prior to filing of motion to terminate parental rights. Certified copies of convictions, alone, are not clear and convincing proof of depravity. Court erred in finding that Respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward goal of returning minor to him, as DCFS never recommended any services for him to complete upon which his progress could be measured. (HUDSON and BURKE, concurring.)