Child Law

(Court opinion corrected 2/19/14.)Court properly denied motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for defamation. Defendant's allegedly defamatory statements, made in course of reporting her suspicion of inappropriate "rent a cop scheme" of police officers on election day. Police department, in carrying out direction of superintendent in manner described in allegations, is a quasi-judicial body, and Defendant alleged that Plaintiffs had engaged in criminal conduct. Thus, Defendant's allegations were made to police superintendent for purpose of instituting criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs, to which absolute privilege applies. (HOFFMAN and DELORT, concurring.)

Respondent, a minor, was convicted of home invasion, attempted aggravated robbery, and criminal trespass to a residence. Court sentenced Respondent to indeterminate sentence in Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (DOJJ). Evidence supported court's finding of guilty; court did not find credible the testimony from Respondent's family members that Respondent was home the entire night, and court was able to reconcile any inconsistencies in testimony of three witnesses who were inside the home. Court was presented with alternatives to incarceration, and court did not abuse its sentencing discretion in finding DOJJ was least restrictive alternative based on facts.(TURNER and STEIGMANN, concurring.)

Respondent, age 79 and diagnosed with dementia and Alzheimer's, became adoptive father of his two minor grandsons; adoptive mother was deceased. Respondent's condition significantly impaired his ability to provide necessary care and parenting of minors. No ineffective assistance of counsel, as Respondent failed to show prejudice by failure to object and by other conduct of his counsel. Court did not err in finding minors dependent and making minors wards of the court. Courts are given wide latitude in admitting evidence in dispositional hearings.(McBRIDE and TAYLOR, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 2/4/14.) Post-Conviction Hearing Act does not apply to juveniles. Respondent, convicted of first-degree murder in a juvenile court proceeding (designated extended juvenile jurisdiction) for stabbing death of fellow 8th-grade student in altercation after, has no access to remedy of Post-Conviction Hearing Act. (HOWSE and LAVIN, concurring.)

Contrary to Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, ALJ made no finding that agency proved by preponderance of evidence that mother's restraint of her adopted deaf child, while transporting her to hospital, created substantial risk of physical injury likely to cause death or severe injury. Thus, agency failed to show that abuse occurred under the Act. Court improperly denied Plaintiff's request for expungement of indicated report of abuse. Finding that allegation of harm is proven cannot be sufficient on its own to find abuse. (BIRKETT and SPENCE, concurring.)

Minor was adjudicated delinquent at age 15, and sentenced to 5 years probation. State filed petition alleging probation violation, and minor, then age 20, was ordered to serve 5 days in county jail. Court lacked authority, under Juvenile Court Act, to sentence minor to time in county jail, as Section 5-710 of Act authorizes only 30-day term in juvenile detention. A minor who violates probation is subject to being resentenced to any other sentence available at time of initial sentence under Section 5-710 of the Act. (LYTTON and McDADE, concurring.)

State failed to file separate notice specifying nine-month period upon which it was relying in its petition for adjudication of wardship. State's defective notice was not failure to state a cause of action, but a pleading defect. Section 1(D)(m)(iii) of Adoption Act does not require specification of periods at issue in termination petition itself, but requires that State file and service a notice pleading with time periods at least three weeks before discovery closes. (GARMAN, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, KARMEIER, and BURKE, concurring.)

Trial court's best-interests finding, that it was in minor's best interests to terminate mother's parental rights, is not against manifest weight of evidence, as court could have reasonably concluded that stability and permanency that an adoption would provide were preferable to guardianship. Evidence showed that mother failed to visit minor during substantial period of time when mother was not incarcerated; and that mother was rated unsatisfactory on most tasks in service plan. (HUTCHINSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)