Child Law

Plaintiff appealed final administrative decision of DCFS, denying his request to expunge indicated finding of sexual abuse as to his 5-year-old daughter. Appellate court will not review propriety of DCFS investigation but only ultimate decision. Testimony of 5 witnesses that child disclosed that Plaintiff touched her private parts provides sufficient evidence to conclude that agency could have found by preponderance of evidence that Plaitniff sexually abused his daughter according to the allegations. (PALMER and McBRIDE, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 6/26/15.) Court's determination that it was in best interest of three minors to terminate their mother's parental rights was not against manifest weight of evidence. Court sufficiently considered statutory best interest factors, and found mother unfit because she had not made reasonable progress toward return of minors during relevant nine-month periods.(CARTER and LYTTON, concurring.)

In proceeding denying termination of father's parental rights to his son, court stated that it was concerned with father's lack of opportunity to prove his ability to care for son. Court thus erred in balancing rights of father to maintain his legal relationship with minor against the best interests of minor. Father had been given a chance to be a father to his minor son between his release from prison, when son was five months old, and five months later, when father removed his electronic monitoring bracelet and was again incarcerated. Thus, to afford father a second opportunity to demonstrate his abilities as a parent was not in minor's best interest, especially his need for permanency. (HOFFMAN and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Both parents relinquished their parental rights and their daughter, then age 4, was adopted by her paternal grandmother, who died five years later. Mother then petitioned for emergency and temporary guardianship of minor. Court erred in granting plenary guardianship of minor to mother, as her petition was deficient in that it failed to list names and addresses of close relatives, and court abused its discretion in ignoring material facts of which it was made aware and which were omitted from mother’s petition, and in failing to conduct evidentiary hearing to determine whose guardianship was in best interest of minor. (HOLDRIDGE and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Court entered order adjudicating Respondent minor a habitual juvenile offender (HJO) and a violent juvenile offender (VJO), and sentencing him to Department of Juvenile Justice until age 21. Juvenile's failure to file timely notice of appeal deprived appellate court of jurisdiction to consider any issues arising from either his guilty plea or his sentence, including challenge to sufficiency of admonishments given at time of his 2013 guilty plea. HJO and VJO mandatory sentencing provisions do not violate eighth amendment or Illinois proportionate penalties clause. (HARRIS, concurring; CONNORS, specially concurring.)