Child Law

Court adjudicated Respondent delinquent of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and ordered him to register under Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Respondent, then age 16, was found to have sexually abused 8-year old girl at her home. SORA and Sex Offender Community Notification Law are not unconstitutional when applied to adjudicated delinquent juveniles, given intent of SORA and Notification Law to protect the public, and given that they accord with purposes of Juvenile Court Act, including rehabilitation of minors, protecting public from juvenile crime, and holding juvenile offenders accountable.The SORA and Notification Law do not have a punitive intent and do not violated proportionate penalties clause. (REYES, concurring; GORDON, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

Court entered adjudication orders finding that father abused and neglected 3 of his minor children, and a disposition order finding him unfit and adjudging the children wards of the court. Multiple hearsay statements may serve as corroboration of child's allegations of sexual abuse. Statements and diagnoses within child's medical records, which father successfully sought to be admitted, corroborate child's statements of abuse by father. Finding of sexual abuse was not against manifest weight of evidence. (GORDON and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Respondent minor, in 2012, admitted to allegation of robbery, for which he received modified term of probation to continue until his 21st birthday. In 2013 he admitted to charge of unlawful possession of cannabis, and was sentenced to indeterminate term in in Department of Juvenile Justice. Court erred in committing Respondent to IDJJ for indeterminate term. Court failed to first consider less restrictive alternatives, and failed to make express verbal or written finding, under Section 5-750(1)(b) of Juvenile Court Act, that commitment to IDJJ was the least restrictive alternative. (HUTCHINSON and ZENOFF, concurring.)

 Court's finding that mother and father of minor child were unfit, and terminating their parental rights, was not against manifest weight of evidence.  Mother was not denied a fair hearing or due process at hearing on parental fitness. Court properly took judicial notice of father's Sex Offender Registry printout, which listed father's address, as it fell within public records exception to hearsay rule.   Court properly admitted, as a business record, letter from day care director describing minor's behavior.  Court properly made determinations as to mother's hearsay objections and refused to consider portions of court file it found to be hearsay. (LIU and HARRIS, concurring.)

Court's finding that father was unfit to parent his minor child, now age 6, was not against manifest weight of evidence, as State presented clear and convincing evidence that father failed to make reasonable progress during the first 9-month period.  Court erred in failing to admonish father as to his right to appeal the termination order, and also erred in later conveying to father that he had no right to obtain the record to pursue his appeal. Father was entitled to full and fair opportunity to develop and present his position on appeal. Delays, contrary to timelines in Juvenile Court Act and Rule 311(a)(5), left father and child in limbo for extended time.(SCHOSTOK and BURKE, concurring.)

Respondent minor appeals adjudication of delinquency and dispositional order of probation. Court found Respondent guilty of robbery and aggravated battery of an 18-year-old student , whom he pushed and then grabbed wallet from her hand.Court sentenced him to 5 years of probation. Court was within its discretion in ordering Respondent to maintain a "C average" in school as a condition of his probation. Mandatory probation requirement is rationally related to twin goals of the Juvenile Court Act as it protects the public, while still allowing for an individualized sentence. Minor reported grades of A's and B's, has no mental or physical health issues, and has a supportive family. Requirement does not challenge the integrity of the judicial process. (REYES, concurring; LAMPKIN, specially concurring.)

Court properly denied motion to substitute judge filed by parents of minors. Court had made a substantive ruling in entering a finding of paternity. Court's findings of abuse of minor, then age 6 months, who was diagnosed with fractures to both arms, and one arm being refractured, were diagnosed by ER physician as more likely than not caused by abuse. Mother was aware of problems with infant's arms for 3 days before she took her to ER.  Juvenile Court Act does not require a finding as to who committed the abuse for finding of abuse to be made.  FIndings of neglect as to infant, and anticipatory neglect as to her sibling, age 3, were not against manifest weight of evidence, based on mother's delay in seeking medical treatment for infant's injuries. (CONNORS and HARRIS, concurring.)

Court properly adjudicated two minor siblings wards of the State; siblings' half-sister reported that their father had sexually abused her multiple times over several years, and father confessed to abusing half-sister while 2 siblings were in his custody and living in his home.  Thus, evidence was sufficient to prove allegations of petitions by preponderance of evidence in video recorded statement to the police. As father does not argue that substance of his video recorded statement was inaccurate, his argument that statement was inadmissible hearsay and that no proper foundation was laid to admit video fails. (McBRIDE and COBBS, concurring.)