Child Law

In re A.T.

In re A.T.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Abuse and Neglect
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (3d) 140372
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Tazewell Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McDADE
After finding of neglect and dispositional hearing, court found Respondent mother unfit to care for her minor child. Dispositional report support conclusion, as mother had made several threats to kill minor, is and exhibited actual conduct supporting finding of unfitness. (O'BRIEN and WRIGHT, concurring.)

In re Shermaine S.

In re Shermaine S.
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Juvenile Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 142421
Decision Date: 
Friday, January 9, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HYMAN
(Court opinion corrected 1/13/15. Respondent minor, age 16 at time of offense, was convicted, after jury trial, of one count of robbery, and was sentenced as a habitual juvenile offender (based on two dispositions for burglary in two prior years) and sentenced to mandatory term of commitment to Department of Juvenile Justice until age 21. Based on Illinois Supreme Court precedent, mandatory sentencing provision of Juvenile Court Act does not violate eighth amendment or Illinois proportionate penalties clause. (PUCINSKI and LAVIN, concurring.)

In re C.C.

In re C.C.
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Juvenile Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 142306
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 4th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
ELLIS
Respondent, age 14 at time of shooting, was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting death of 17-year-old. Respondent was sentenced to imprisonment in Department of Juvenile Justice until age 21, with mandatory minimum 45-year adult criminal sentence. Under extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) statute, adult sentence stayed, to be vacated upon completion of juvenile sentence if no new offenses and no violation of conditions of juvenile sentence. As stay on Respondent's adult sentence has not been revoked and it is currently in no jeopardy of being revoked, he lacks standing at this time to challenge severity of his adult sentence, as his asserted injury is too remote to confer standing.(HOWSE and EPSTEIN, concurring.)

Public Act 98-1142

Topic: 
Eavesdropping
(Nekritz, D-Buffalo Grove; Raoul, D-Chicago) makes several changes to Illinois’ eavesdropping law after the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the current statute for being too broad. It re-establishes Illinois’ all-party consent statute for the recording of private conversations. Specifically, it does the following. (1) An eavesdropper is someone who uses an eavesdropping device to secretly record a private conversation without the consent of all parties involved in the conversation. A conversation is considered private if at least one of those involved had a reasonable expectation that the conversation is private. (2) An eavesdropper is anyone who uses a device to secretly record electronic communications without the consent of everyone involved. (3) An eavesdropper is someone who discloses the content of a private conversation or private electronic communication without permission. (4) The penalty for eavesdropping on a law enforcement officer, state’s attorney or judge is reduced from a Class 1 felony to a Class 3 felony. The penalty for eavesdropping on a private citizen remains a Class 4 felony and a Class 3 felony for a subsequent conviction. (5) It expands the number of crimes in which law enforcement doesn’t need to get judicial permission to eavesdrop as long as they have the approval—written or verbal—of the local state’s attorney. State’s attorneys must submit reports annually explaining how often this exemption was used. Effective Dec. 30, 2014.
View Full Text of Legislation

In re Kelvion V.

In re Kelvion V.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Abuse and Neglect
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 140965
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
MASON
Court properly vacated order of protective supervision, which allowed Respondent-mother's two children, ages 6 and 2, to remain in her care subject to certain conditions. be removed from her care and custody does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Mother's conduct in leaving 2-year-old alone and resisting caseworker's efforts to check on children's safety posed substantial risk of harm to the children, which justified removing them from mother's care. (PUCINSKI and LAVIN, concurring.)

In re S.R.

In re S.R.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Termination of Parental Rights
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (3d) 140565
Decision Date: 
Thursday, December 11, 2014
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Will Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McDADE
(Court opinion corrected 12/19/14.) Court's findings, that Respondent mother was unfit to parent her child, and that it was in minor's best interest to terminate Respondent's parental rights, not against manifest weight of evidence. Record establishes Respondent has mental inability sufficient to preclude her from discharging normal responsibilities. Forensic psychiatrist testified that he diagnosed Respondent with schizoaffective disorder, severe in duration and in terms of impact, and noted that she has been found unfit to stand trial three separate times over 10-year period. That psychiatrist's interview with Respondent was 90 minutes and two years prior to fitness hearing did not change his opinion about Respondent's inability to care for a child at any point in her life. (LYTTON and WRIGHT, concurring.)

In re S.H.

In re S.H.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Termination of Parental Rights
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (3d) 140500
Decision Date: 
Thursday, December 4, 2014
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Knox Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Justice: 
LYTTON
State filed petition to terminate parental rights of Respondent as to her six children. After best interests hearing, court terminated her parental rights. State's petition sufficiently stated specific statutory grounds for unfitness, and any defect in pleading did not prejudice Respondent. Wardship case as to one child had been closed a few days after filing of State's neglect petition, custody was awarded to his father, and minor had not been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent, or made a ward of court. Thus, court was without authority to terminate Respondent's parental rights. Court's findings that Respondent failed to make reasonable progress, and that termination was in minors' best interests, were not against manifest weight of evidence.(CARTER and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

Senate Bill 3075

Topic: 
Juror fees and jury composition
(Madigan, D-Chicago; Mulroe, D-Chicago) makes the following changes for juror pay: (1) Requires counties to pay jurors $25 for the first day of service and thereafter $50 for each day of service. (2) Deletes the current requirement to pay for jurors’ travel expenses. (3) Requires all trials by jury in civil cases to be six jurors but still requires that the verdict be unanimous. If alternate jurors are requested, an additional fee established by the county must be charged for each alternate juror requested. Effective date would be June 1, 2015. Senate Bill 3075 is scheduled for hearing Dec. 1 in House Judiciary Committee.
View Full Text of Legislation

In re F.O.

In re F.O.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Termination of Parental Rights
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 140954
Decision Date: 
Friday, November 21, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
GORDON
Juvenile court properly determined that nine-year-old minor was not subject to Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) prior to terminating Respondent mother's parental rights. Mother admitted that she stated that she had "Seminole Creek" heritage and that "Seminole Creek" is not a tribe recognized by Bureau of Indian Affairs. State complied with its duties under the ICWA by sending notices to BIA. No letters from various Indian tribes with whom Respondent claimed heritage were part of record, and notices sent by State to tribes were sufficient under ICWA. (PALMER and McBRIDE, concurring.)

Elston v. Oglesby

Elston v. Oglesby
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Adoption
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (4th) 130732
Decision Date: 
Thursday, October 30, 2014
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Sangamon Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HARRIS
Petitioner filed motion to reopen adoption in which she was adopted, at age 4, by her stepfather, and sought to vacate decree of adoption entered in 1973. Petitioner alleged fraud and lack of personal jurisdiction over her biological father, alleging that her mother filed false affidavit with intent that her father would not be found when mother knew or had ability to find father. Proof of extrinsic fraud would render adoption judgment void. However, Petitioner lacked standing to bring her claim, as she did not allege lack of jurisdiction over her, but over her father. (TURNER and HOLDER WHITE, concurring.)