Child Law

Father's parental rights were terminated in 2008, but State failed to make diligent inquiry of current and last known address as required for serving father by publication. State and DCFS had additional knowledge that may have led them to contact information for father. Diligent inquiry of Section 2-16(2) of Juvenile Court Act requires a good-faith attempt at acquiring contact information for a parent, including inquiry about potential leads, and unequivocally requires a diligent inquiry whenever service by publication is used. State's service by publication was defective, and thus court lacked personal jurisdiction over father for termination of his parental rights. (THOMAS, GARMAN, and KARMEIER, concurring; BURKE, FREEMAN, and THEIS, specially concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 9/8/11.) Court found minor neglected due to lack of care and injurious environment. Respondent had adopted minor, after serving as her foster mother, at age 3. Respondent failed to provide shelter for minor, as she refused to allow her back in home after hospital discharge and failed to find alternative residence, failed to visit minor during her two months of hospitalization. Thus, court's finding of neglect, rather than dependency, was not against manifest weight of evidence. (CUNNINGHAM and KARNEZIS, concurring.)

Minor, an Indian child under Indian Child Welfare Act, was prenatally exposed to a controlled substance. Placement of child into non-Native foster home was in compliance with the Act, as Tribe's Indian child welfare caseworker approved placement. Court properly terminated parental rights of both parents, as they had signficant and long-term substance abuse history, failed to show interest in minor for lengthy period, and failed to follow recommendations for services offered. Court properly considered risk of emotional or physical harm reunification would present to minor as factor in termination decision. (GARCIA and R.E. GORDON, concurring.)

Court properly considered five factors, as set forth in Supreme Court's Eckert case, in deciding removal petition. Court's finding that mother's motivation for requesting removal of children to Georgia was primarily and reasonably based upon her fear of father, given his history of substance abuse and behavioral problems, threats of violence, and repeated violations of orders of protection. Court did not fail to provide father with visitation, but advised parties that a visitation schedule would have to be reached regardless of outcome of petition for removal, and that either party could file motion requesting hearing on visitation. (CARTER and HOLDRIDGE, concurring.)

At close of termination hearing evidence, court found father unfit, based on father's previous criminal history, and then after best interest hearing found termination of father's parental rights was in best interests of minors. Court properly denied Respondent father's motion for recusal of judge, who was seated on bench while persons not involved in TPR proceedings discussed photographs presented by State during father's trial for murder of children's mother. No evidence that court based its finding of unfitness on any information other than certified copies of father's previous criminal convictions, which did not include murder conviction. Finding of best interests was not against manifest weight of evidence; father had been convicted of murder, and charge alleged that father stabbed mother in presence of one of the children and one other child, age five. (CARTER and LYTTON, concurring.)