Child Law

(Court opinion modified 10/3/13.) DCFS took seven-day-old infant into protective custody, and State then filed petition alleging neglect due to injurious environment. Respondent mother refused appointed counsel, and was pro se in adjudicatory hearing. Court properly allowed mother to proceed pro se, as court thoroughly explained procedures for hearing, and advised her of her continuing right to counsel. Remanded for trial court to enter clear and sufficient findings of fact, and express factual basis supporting court's finding of neglect. (JORGENSEN and HUDSON, concurring.)

Juvenile Court Act does not authorize trial court to commit a minor to Department of Juvenile Justice when the minor, who was adjudicated delinquent for unlawful consumption of alcohol, violates conditions of probation. Enlarging circumstances under which a minor could be sentenced to incarceration is contrary to statutory policy for developing community-based programs to prevent delinquent behavior. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, KARMEIER, and BURKE, concurring.)

Court order preserving status of minor, and awarding temporary guardianship, pending full hearing on guardianship of minor, was not a final determination of rights of Respondent (who alleged he was father of minor) appealable under Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(1), but was an interlocutory order. Court must make certain threshold determinations before awarding permanent guardianship, but temporary order did not violate that principle. (CARTER and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 9/4/13.) DCFS issued final administrative decision to remove grandchildren from Respondent’s home. Court properly dismissed Respondent’s complaint for administrative review, as it was not filed within 35 days of date DCFS served a copy of its administrative decision. DCFS properly served Respondent’s attorney of record with its administrative decision, via certified mail, and DCFS was not required to also serve a copy upon Respondent personally. Thirty-five day filing requirement is jurisdictional. (STEIGMANN and KNECHT, concurring.)

DCFS' indicated finding of sexual penetration against woman, then age 19, was against the manifest weight of the evidence. That woman had sexual relationship with 16-year-old homeless minor who had been occasionally staying at home of woman's parents. Court did not specifically find that minor and Respondent were "residing together"; Status of persons entrusted to care for minors is not the focus or purpose of adjudicatory hearing. (APPLETON and KNECHT, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 6/21/13.) Minor, age 14, was charged in juvenile court for felony murder, with predicate felony of mob action, in beating death of 16-year-old boy. Court properly designated case as Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile Prosecution (EJJP), after considering all factors listed in EJJP statute, including seriousness of offense which is one of two most important factors. Court properly denied proposed instruction for misdemeanor battery; mental state of predicate felony is not to be considered. Felony murder charge and its predicate felony of mob action were based on separate acts, as Defendant used a wooden board to swing at someone other than victim, then punched victim in face, then chased other victims. EJJP statute is not unconstitutionally vague and does not violate due process. (LAMPKIN and HALL, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 6/21/13.) In child abuse proceeding as to infant with numerous medical problems, manifest weight of evidence does not support conclusion that infant had knee fracture, and thus speculative theory that abuse is evidenced by "constellation of injuries" cannot stand. Conflicting physician opinions were offered as to whether infant had signs of abuse or conditions mimicking child abuse. Parents' experts offered medical, nonabuse explanations as to their areas of expertise, and experts testified that birth trauma could explain infant's conditions. Court erred in disregarding parents' experts' diagnoses because a single, uniform medical condition could not explain every medical finding infant presented. (NEVILLE and PIERCE, concurring.)

Minor made independent report of sexual abuse, by mother's boyfriend, to her classroom aide, and told aide that mother told her that it was her fault and that she would need to lie about the incident. Mother told DCFS investigator that she had told minor to not say anything as she was afraid of boyfriend. Facts support finding that mother exposed child to injurious environment, by failing to remove boyfriend from the home, after minor made allegations, and also by previously failing to remove him from home when he had been violent toward mother. (CARTER and LYTTON, concurring.)

State charged Respondent, then age 21, by delinquency petition with aggravated criminal sexual assault, allegedly committed when he was age 14. Although juvenile court had subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and inherent authority to adjudicate the petition, Juvenile Court Act did not authorize State to institute juvenile delinquency proceedings against Respondent, because he was 21 or over when the petition was filed. Juvenile court correctly dismissed petition, and without a valid juvenile petition, no discretionary transfer to criminal court was permitted under the Act. (McLAREN and HUDSON, concurring.)