Child Law

Respondent appealed from a trial court order finding the respondent’s minor child abused or neglected and placing the minor in the guardianship of the Department of Children and Family Services. Respondent argued on appeal that the State failed to meet the requisite burden of proof for abuse and neglect. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court’s neglect finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence even though the trial court was unable to discern if respondent had coached her minor child to make false allegations of abuse or if the allegations of abuse were true and, as a result, respondent had failed to protect her minor child. The appellate court noted that the opposite conclusion was not clearly warranted based on the facts of the case. (MARTIN and ROCHFORD, concurring)

Respondent appealed from a trial court order terminating her parental rights after the trial court found the respondent to be an unfit parent. On appeal, respondent argued that the State failed to prove her unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, that her lack of progress should not be held against her because she did not receive accommodations for her intellectual disability, that the father’s lack of parental fitness should not be held against her, that the trial court committed evidentiary errors, and that it was not in the best interests of the child that respondent’s parental right be termination. The appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed, finding that respondent failed to show that the trial court’s fitness determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that respondent did not provide any basis for finding that proper accommodations for her disability would have changed the outcome. (FITZGERALD SMITH and COBBS, concurring)

Respondent appealed from the circuit court’s adjudicatory findings in which the court found that respondent’s minor children were abused and neglected and argued that the circuit court erred when it admitted and relied on hearsay evidence in reaching its conclusion. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the testimony at issue was not hearsay because it was not presented for the truth of the matter asserted because it was offered to show the agency’s course of conduct in taking protective custody of the children. The appellate court further found that the circuit court’s order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. (MITCHELL and MIKVA, concurring)

In a consolidated appeal, respondent challenged the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights over her two minor children, arguing that the court erred in finding her unfit on any of the grounds alleged. The appellate court agreed that the court erred by granting the State’s petition to terminate respondent’s parental rights as to one of her minor children and reversed that judgment, but found that the court’s finding of unfitness was supported by clear and convincing evidence as to the other minor and that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the second child’s best interests. (DeARMOND and CAVANAGH, concurring)

The appellate court held that the trial court did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act when it terminated the respondent’s parental rights to her minor children. The appellate court found that the trial court did not comply with the Act’s requirements regarding notice to the appropriate Indian tribes and vacated the trial court’s judgments and remanded with instructions for further proceedings. (MOORE and BARBERIS, concurring)