Child Law

State does not have standing to file motion to declare nonexistence of parent and child relationship. Whether presumed father signed VAP due to fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact is a claim relating to legal interest of father, and should be advanced by the father himself, not the State, as it was not a signatory to the VAP. Court erred in declaring nonpaternity, and in dismissing presumed father as a party in the neglect proceedings. Because allegations of neglect concerned conduct of presumed father, but he was wrongly dismissed, court's finding that child was neglected due to injurious environment must be reversed. As focus of neglect proceeding is on whether child is neglected, and not whether a parent is neglectful, adverse finding against child's mother must also be reversed. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring; CARTER, dissenting.)

Uncorroborated hearsay statements of five-year-old minor alone were insufficient to support a finding of abuse. Sufficient corroboration of alleged abuse or neglect requires more than just witnesses testifying that minor told them of abuse. Minor's mother failed to present sufficient evidence to show that father's visitation would seriously endanger minor. Court properly admitted videotape of minor and her father during visitation at courthouse, as court found tape relevant only for limited purpose of showing that minor did not fear her father, and to observe their interaction. Court properly denied mother's motion for in camera interview with minor, as mother could have presented minor's testimony during hearing but chose not to do so, and trial court has great discretion as to whether to conduct in camera interviews with minors. (WELCH and CATES, concurring.)

Trial court granted minor's motion to suppress confession for failure to advise him of his Miranda rights. Appellate court dismissed State's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Policy shift in making juvenile delinquency proceedings more like criminal proceedings provides juveniles with many protections of criminal defendants. State has same interest in appealing a suppression order in a juvenile case as in a criminal case. Supreme Court Rule 660(a) should be modified to allow State to appeal interlocutory order suppressing evidence in a juvenile delinquency proceeding. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, GARMAN, KARMEIER, and BURKE, concurring; THEIS, dissenting.)

State filed juvenile petition alleging mother's neglect of child who was an enrolled member of Seminole Indian tribe. Court improperly denied mother's motion for continuance so tribe could enter the case.prior to combined adjudication and dispositional hearing. Court's orders finding child neglected and mother unfit constituted "foster care placement" under the Indian Child Welfare Act, and thus court was required to comply with notice provisions of Act prior to hearing. (O'BRIEN and SCHMIDT, concurring.)