Child Law

In a juvenile delinquency case, no Illinois Supreme Court Rules allow a minor to appeal an order continuing the case under supervision, when the order is entered after a finding of guilty. Order continuing respondent’s case under supervision, although entered after a finding of guilty, was not a final, appealable order, and thus appellate court was without jurisdiction to consider appeal.  (GARMAN, KILBRIDE, KARMEIER, and THEIS, concurring; BURKE, dissenting.)

Petition alleging abuse and neglect filed 5 days after birth of Respondent mother's 5th child. One of her children had, 2 months prior, found a gun in the home, owned by mother's boyfriend, and shot and accidentally killed his sibling. There is nothing in the record to suggest that mother abused or neglected child. Evidence that mother has not done everything social services requires of her to regain custody of her other children is not determinative. Just as prior abuse or neglect of a sibling does not per se establish neglect of another sibling, "a prior finding of unfitness does not prove per se neglect." Court properly found that State had not proved abuse or neglect by a preponderance of the evidence under a theory of anticipatory neglect. (ELLIS and COBBS, concurring.)

Court erred in finding Respondent father unfit to care for his daughter and that it was in best interest of minor that his parental rights be terminated. Court's findings on both grounds (failure to make reasonable progress toward return home, and failure to maintain reasonable degree of interest or concern for minor's welfare were against manifest weight of evidence. Failing to complete a task beyond one's intellectual capacity is not the same as refusing to comply with court-ordered directives and willfully failing to make reasonable efforts or maintaining reasonable degree of interest in child. Court was required to consider father's conduct in light of circumstances facing him, and no modifications to services were made to allow father to be compliant with tasks given his intellectual deficits. Finding of unfitness does not necessarily mean that parental rights should be terminated. (McDADE, concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.)

Court found both natural parents to be unfit; and found that it was in best interests of child to terminate both parents' parental rights and to appoint a guardian with right to consent to adoption of the minor. Court considered all factors required by Juvenile Court Act, with detailed explanations for findings. Judgment was not against manifest weight of evidence.Court properly weighed minor's attachment to his foster mother and that minor, although young indicated that he wants to bee adopted by his foster mother. (PIERCE and NEVILLE, concurring.)

Juvenile Respondent, then age 13, inflicted cuts on her 14-year-old brother with a kitchen knife during argument over a missing shower cap.Respondent was adjudicated delinquent, including for aggravated battery and aggravated domestic battery, and was ordered to register under the Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act. That Act does not violate substantive due process, procedural due process, or equal protection.(GARMAN and KARMEIER, concurring; BURKE, FREEMAN, KILBRIDE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Following adjudication and disposition hearings, court terminated parental rights of Respondent mother to her 3 children, and found children abused and neglected, Respondent to be unfit, found Respondent should not be allowed visitation, and it was in best interests of children that a guardian with right to consent to their adoption be appointed. Children's father had previously admitted to hitting one child's twin brother, who died at 8 months old from cerebral edema due to skull fracture from multiple blunt force injuries, and was convicted of murder.Respondent allowed children to be beaten, failing to notice their injuries and pain, and continued to deny any responsibility for their injuries.Court's findings were not against manifest weight of evidence. Court was within its discretion in denying visitation and in admitting independent expert witness testimony. Requirement that State disclose basis for each opinion applied only to controlled experts. Expert's opinion that injuries of deceased child were fresh was not a new opinion, as in expert discovery responses expert's opinions included that child sustained acute blunt trauma, which means that injuries were recent.(LAMPKIN and GORDON, concurring.)

Court terminated Respondent father's parental rights to his daughter. Court's factual findings, that Respondent was an unfit person and that terminating his parental rights were in the best interest of the minor, were not against manifest weight of evidence. Minor was born when Respondent was in jail, awaiting trial, and never has had any contact with her. Foster mother has established relationship with minor, and is knowledgeable about complicated medical problems of minor, who was born with cannabis and alcohol in her system. (TURNER and STEIGMANN, concurring.)