Child Law

In re Rufus T., a Minor

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Juvenile Sex Offenders
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 2-09-0986
Decision Date: 
Thursday, May 12, 2011
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Winnebago Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SCHOSTOK
(Court opinion corrected 6/24/11.) Respondent, then age 15, was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent in 1999 based on admission of attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault of a child under age 9, and was required to register as a sex offender. Court's duty to consider factors in Section 3-5(e) of Sex Offender Registration Act, in ruling on petition for removal from sex offender registry, is directory rather than mandatory. Court is not mandated to consider a risk assessment, and determination of whether a respondent has proven necessity for risk assessment is within court's discretion. (ZENOFF and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Senate Bill 2015

Topic: 
Temporary guardianships
(Silverstein, D-Chicago; Saviano, R-Elmwood Park) does three things. (1) Allows a temporary guardian to be appointed if a guardian dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns. (2) Requires that the court state the actual harm that makes the temporary guardianship or any extension necessary. (3) If there has been an adjudication of disability, no extension of temporary guardianship may be granted unless there is a pending appeal, citation, petition to appoint a successor guardian because the former guardian has resigned, become incapacitated, or died; or if the guardian’s powers have been suspended by court order. If there has not been an adjudication of disability, an extension must be granted for no more than 120 days pending if the court finds it is in the best interest of the alleged disabled person so as to protect the person from abuse or neglect. Passed both chambers.

House Bill 83

Topic: 
Juvenile justice
(Yarbrough, D-Maywood; Collins, D-Chicago) amends the Juvenile Court Act to reduce recidivism of troubled youth by encouraging juvenile courts to explore less restrictive alternatives before incarcerating them. It will also help Illinois recover federal IVe funds for services to delinquent youth. Passed both chambers.

In re J.R., a Minor

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Juvenile Law
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 3-10-0094
Decision Date: 
Monday, June 6, 2011
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
La Salle Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
CARTER
Minor's mother appealed commitment of minor to Department of Juvenile Justice; minor had been adjudged delinquent. Parent lacks standing to challenge dispositional order, as the order was sufficiently based on findings that did not concern her rights. Court twice advised mother that she had right to retain counsel of her own or rely on same counsel as minor, and both times mother stated that she wanted to proceed with same counsel as minor. Thus, mother made knowing waiver of counsel. (SCHMIDT and McDADE, concurring.)

In re Quadaysha C.

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Termination of Parental Rights
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 2-10-1105
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Winnebago Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
McLAREN
Respondent mother's parental rights were terminated as to four of her ten children, based on allegations that mother's sister, who was guardian of minors, inflicted excessive corporal punishment on them. At dispositional hearing, Assistant PD identified herself as in for a colleague of behalf of CASA, which had been appointed as GAL for children. As same Assistant PD had appeared on behalf of mother for nearly two years, beginning with first permanency hearing, per se conflict of interest requires reversal of termination. Per se nature of rule requires no proof of prejudice, as presumed prejudice arises from divided loyalties entailed by representing more than one party in a proceeding. (HUTCHINSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

House Bill 192

Topic: 
Students, schools, and the courts
(Eddy, R-Hutsonville; Righter, R-Mattoon) makes several changes affecting students who are respondents under the Stalking No Contact Order Act, the Civil No Contact Order Act, and the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986. (1) Provides that the court may order that the respondent accept a change of educational placement or program, as determined by the school. (2) The respondent bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that the educational transfer, change of placement, or change of program of the respondent is not available. The respondent’s agreement is irrelevant to whether a remedy is “not available.” (3) The respondent must also share the burden for the expense, difficulty, and educational disruption caused by a transfer of the respondent to another school. (4) Provides that the court may make the parents, guardian, or legal custodian of the respondent responsible for costs associated with the respondent's placement under the order. (5) Prohibits a court in the enforcement of an order from holding a school district or private or non-public school or any of its employees in civil or criminal contempt unless the school district or private or non-public school has been allowed to intervene. (6) Allows a court to hold the parents, guardian, or legal custodian of the minor respondent in civil or criminal contempt for a violation of an order for conduct of the minor in violation of the Act if the parents, guardian, or legal custodian directed, encouraged, or assisted the minor in the conduct. On third reading in the Senate after passing the House.

In re R.R. and K.R., Minors

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Termination of Parental Rights
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 3-10-0556
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Peoria Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
LYTTON
Court found mother of two children unfit, after one child, at one month old, was diagnosed with a skull fracture. The only medical opinion as to infant's injuries was pediatrician's report that infant's head injuries were inflicted and due to abusive head trauma. Report was proper and admissiblek, as it contained opinion based on physical exam, information relayed to physician about infant, and infant's medical records. Court's finding that mother was unfit at time of dispositional hearing was not against manifest weight of evidence, given unexplained injuries to infance and given that mother still had to complete psychiatric evaluation and counseling. (HOLDRIDGE and McDADE, concurring.)

In re Marriage of A'Hearn

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Sanctions
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 3-10-0831
Decision Date: 
Monday, March 21, 2011
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Will Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
HOLDRIDGE
(Court opinion corrected 4/22/11.) Court dismissed father's petition for temporary and permanent custody of his 14-year-old son. Court abused its discretion by imposing the harshest sanction available after insufficient enforcement efforts: barring all of father's witnesses from testifying, as sanction for father's counsel not disclosing witnesses until five days prior to trial, and then dismissing petition with prejudice. Postdissolution proceedings are generally new actions. Interests of justice are not served if one party can defeat appellate jurisdiction on custody issues by filing separate, completely unrelated petition. Petition for modification of custody was independent and separate from petitions for rule to show cause and for continued maintenance, and they are thus separate actions and not related claims. (CARTER, concurring; McDADE, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

In re: A.L., a Minor

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Termination of Parental Rights
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 4-10-0925
Decision Date: 
Thursday, April 14, 2011
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Schuyler Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
STEIGMANN
Court's finding that mother was unfit was supported by manifest weight of evidence, in terminating parental rights of respondent as to her four-year-old daughter. Respondent had not fully complied with her service plan goals during any nine-month period so that child could have been placed in her care in the near future. (KNECHT and McCULLOUGH, concurring.)

People v. Fields

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Conflict of Interest
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 3-08-0829
Decision Date: 
Thursday, April 14, 2011
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Henry Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
McDADE
Defendant was convicted of seven counts of sexual offenses against his stepdaughter. Defendant had previously been convicted of same conduct as to his stepdaughter's friend, who had previously resided with Defendant and her mother, and whom defense counsel had previously represented as GAL in juvenile proceeding. Defense counsel had per se conflict of interest because of his prior commitments to other child victim, who would benefit from unfavorable verdict for Defendant. (LYTTON, concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.)