Child Law

Respondent appealed from a circuit court judgment terminating her parental rights to her two minor children. On appeal, respondent raised several issues related to the summons, the discharge of her appointed counsel, the absence of a notice of default order, the judicial notice of a court docket, and the denial of her motion to vacate. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that respondent was denied due process when the circuit court discharged her counsel without compliance with SCR 13 and then proceeded to hold a hearing on the petitions to terminate her parental rights without respondent or her counsel being present at the hearing. (STEIGMANN and LANNERD, concurring)

Respondent appealed from a trial court order finding that her minor children were subjected to physical abuse, substantial risk of physical injury, excessive corporal punishment, and neglect. On appeal, respondent did not challenge the trial court’s dispositional findings but instead argued that the State failed to prove each of the allegations of abuse and neglect by a preponderance of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s findings that one of the minor children was abused due to substantial physical injury and excessive corporal punishment and that three other children were neglected due to an injurious environment but reversed a finding of physical abuse on the basis that the evidence relating to injuries to the child were not sufficiently serious to meet the burden of proof. (ODEN JOHNSON and NAVARRO, concurring)

Respondent appealed from a trial court order granting a motion to vacate its guardianship of the respondent's minor children, to terminate the wardship, appoint the foster parent as guardian, and to close the case. Respondent argued on appeal that the manifest weight of the evidence did not support the court’s ruling. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while respondent had made progress regarding her mental health treatment, the children’s best interests supported closing the case and appointing the foster parent as guardian. (TAILOR and C.A. WALKER, concurring)

The trial court entered an order appointing petitioners as the temporary guardians of their minor grandchildren. The children’s biological mother then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The trial court found that petitioners had standing and respondent appealed, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter a temporary order of guardianship under the Probate Act and that petitioners did not have standing to bring their guardianship petition. The appellate court reversed, finding that the petitioners did not have standing to proceed on their guardianship petition because they failed to rebut the presumption that the respondent, as a biological parent, was willing and able to make and carry out day-to-day child care decisions concerning the minor children. (MOORE and McHANEY, concurring)

Respondent appealed from a trial court order finding that she was dispositionally unfit as a parent to her minor children, continuing the minors’ father as their guardian and custodian, terminating the minors’ wardship, and closing the case. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in terminating wardship and closing the case because the trial court’s finding that the respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward reunification was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court also explained that the trial court’s decision to terminate wardship and to close the case was based, in part, on a mistake of law. The appellate court remanded with instructions for the trial court to re-open the case, reinstate wardship, and set permanency reviews in order to re-assess the best interests of the minors. (CAVANAGH and DOHERTY, concurring)

Respondent appealed from a trial court order adjudicating respondent’s minor child a ward of the court and finding that respondent was unable to care for him, arguing that the findings that the minor was neglected and that respondent was unable to care for him were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where respondent could not provide a safe living space for his child and had declined to accept assistance. (REYES and D.B. WALKER, concurring)