Child Law

Respondent appealed from orders entered by the trial court finding her minor child neglected due to an injurious environment and abuse and finding respondent unable to care for, protect, discipline, or train her child. Respondent’s only argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in entering a finding that respondent had “inflicted” sexual abuse when she did not physically commit the act herself. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court’s order was consistent with the statutory language allowing for a parent to be held to have neglected or abused their child if they allow the abuse to happen and that the facts of the case established respondent was aware of past allegations of abuse. (LAVIN and COGHLAN, concurring)

Respondent appealed from a trial court order terminating her parental rights, arguing that the court erred by permitting testimony that violated her due process rights. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that while the record established that the standards of a problem-solving court were violated when the trial court permitted the State to subpoena respondent’s drug court records and permitted witnesses to testify regarding respondent’s conduct while in drug court, it did not find this deprived respondent of a fair hearing where other evidence supported the trial court's conclusions and the trial court did not indicate a reliance on the improper testimony. (LANNERD and VANCIL, concurring)

Petitioner appealed from an agreed parenting plan and judgment entered by the trial court in which the court found it was in the best interest of the minor children to modify parenting time. The appellate court vacated the judgment of the circuit court for further proceedings and remanded, finding that the trial court’s judgment modifying parenting time was against the manifest weight of the evidence where the respondent was allowed to relocate out of state without filing a petition to relocate or considering the best interests factors under the statute and because the GAL changed his mind during the course of the hearing. The court directed that the mandate issue immediately and that the trial court hold a temporary custody hearing on an emergent basis. (MOORE and SHOLAR, concurring)

Respondent appealed from the trial court’s termination of her parental rights, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that she was an unfit parent after concluding that she had failed to make reasonable progress and efforts toward reunification and failed to maintain a reasonable degree of concern or responsibility for the child’s welfare. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that respondent failed to make reasonable progress during the specified nine-month period where respondent’s efforts to comply with the parenting plan did not occur until after the permanency goal had already been changed from reunification to termination of parental rights. (HYMAN and C.A. WALKER, concurring)

Respondent appealed from the circuit court’s order finding her minor child neglected due to an injurious environment under section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act and a subsequent order adjudicating the minor as a ward of the court. The appellate court affirmed, finding that respondent was not denied the effective assistance of counsel where counsel’s arguments were a strategic decision and where the trial court likely would have reached the same result absent counsel’s strategic decision, that the trial court did not commit plain and obvious error in the consideration of a report that was not admitted at trial where the trial court had wide latitude to consider evidence relevant to its decision, and that the trial court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. (FITZGERALD SMITH and COGHLAN, concurring)

Respondent appealed from orders of the trial court finding her unfit to parent her minor children and terminating her parental rights after the death of one of her children. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court correctly found that the respondent was unfit due to a failure to make reasonable progress toward reunification when that conclusion was sufficiently supported by the evidence and that the trial court did not err when it also found that respondent was unfit for failing to protect her children from conditions in their environment that were injurious to their welfare. (HOFFMAN and MARTIN, concurring)