Child Law

Court terminated parental rights of mother, whose parental rights to her six other minor children had been terminated, and of putative father, based on his lack of interest and involvement with minor, failure to make lifestyle changes, and noncompliance with parenting classes. When the Adoption Act and Juvenile Court Act are construed together, the fitness hearing under Adoption Act is a continuation of the abuse, neglect, or dependency proceeding of Juvenile Court Act. Thus, the rules of evidence in the Juvenile Court Act are applicable to termination of parental rights hearings under the Adoption Act. (KARNEZIS and CONNORS, concurring.)

Defendant, age 16 at time of incident, was adjudicated delinquent, placed on probation, and ordered to perform community service. Court did not deny Respondent due process by not advising him of his right to testify and not verying that he was knowingly and voluntarily waiving that right. Court has no duty to so inform a Respondent who is represented by counsel, sua sponte. Juvenile Court Act requires a Respondent's probation to terminate on his twenty-first birthday. (FITZGERALD SMITH and J. GORDON, concurring.)

Non-parent filed petition under Probate Act seeking guardianship of a minor, stated that he had been caring for minor for the previous three years, alleged that minor's mother has been unable and unwilling to care for her and had relinquished that responsibility to him, and alleged that minor's biological father was unable and unwilling to care for her. Court erred in ruling on the standing issue without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Whether the mother was a willing and able parent was not tried, but the court proceeded to what was ostensibly a dispositional hearing on best interests. GAL should not be precluded from commenting on whether the mother was a willing-and-able parent, as the court had plenary jurisdiction over the person of the minor. (WELCH and STEWART, concurring.)

Parent was found unfit as to two of her minor children. Court's finding of unfitness was not against manifest weight of evidence, as evidence showed that despite several years of therapy, assistance and coaching, parent was incapable of safely and effectively parenting the minors. Parenty failed to show she was treated differently from a similarly situated individual, or that Section 1(D)(g) of Adoption Act contains a presumption of unfitness or that she was unable to rebut or present evidence; thus she failed to show finding of unfitness violated her right to equal protection. (TOOMIN and LAVIN, concurring.)

At a dispositional hearing in a juvenile neglect case, trial court found Respondent grandmother, a party to the case because of her status as the legal guardian for two of the three children, unable to care for them, and that best interest of the children would be jeopardized if they remained in her custody, because she allowed their mother, who was a known substance abuser, to care for the children from the end of their school day until she returned home from work. Court improperly dismissed Respondent grandmother as a party from the case, as this dismissal denied services for her to become able to exercise guardianship over the children. The legislature intended for a minor's legal guardian to remain a party throughout the proceedings, regardless of whether the court names DCFS as guardian. (TURNER and MYERSCOUGH, concurring.)

Court terminated the parental rights of mother as to her minor son, finding that she is unfit and that termination is in minor's best interest. Respondent mother received ineffective assistance of counsel from per se conflict of interest when, during proceedings, the same Assistant PD appeared on her behalf at one hearing and subsequently appeared on minor's behalf at another hearing. Regardless of the source of a client's right to representation, including when under Juvenile Court Act, the right includes the right to undivided loyalty from attorney who does not undertake conflicting interests or inconsistent duties. Length and nature of representation are irrelevant, and conflict rule includes situations where prejudice may be difficult to establish. (McLAREN, concurring; HUTCHINSON, dissenting.)

Delinquency petition was filed in 2007, when Respondent had reached age 21, for events alleged to have occurred in 2000, when Respondent was under age 17. Circuit court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The issue raised by Respondent, that because he had reached age 21 he was no longer subject to petition brought under the Juvenile Court Act, addressed a potentially fatal pleading defect rather than a jurisdictional question. (KILBRIDE, GARMAN, KARMEIER, and THEIS, concurring; FREEMAN and BURKE, dissenting.)

Court terminated parental rights of both natural parents of nine-year-old boy, finding that termination was in minor's best interests. Court was not required to hear evidence or to make explicit finding regarding every statutory best interest factor. Even though minor was not in a pre-adoptive home but in residential facility at time of termination, evidence showed numerous bases for termination being in best interests, including mother's substantial drug addiction, and failure of both parents to show any concern or responsibility for minor's welfare. (NEVILLE and STEELE, concurring.)

Court found that it was in best interest of minor that mother's parental rights be terminated, found that she was unfit, and found that she failed to make reasonable progress toward return home in first nine months following adjudication of neglect. Respondent repeatedly relapsed and was discharged from alcohol treatment programs for drinking during programs, and arrived intoxicated for visits with minor, during initial nine-month period. That Respondent remained sober for 14 months after a relapse after initial nine-month period is irrelevant to finding of failure to make reasonable progress. Court's finding that at time of best interests hearing Respondent was not in a position to have minor returned to her was not unfounded, as Respondent had three recent relapses. Foster mother's testimony that she wanted the minor's family to remain involved in his life does not preclude best interests finding of termination. (NEVILLE and STEELE, concurring.)

Plaintiff filed third amended complaint for wrongful death/medical malpractice in post-operative care after bariatric surgery. Even though reviewing physician's report did not state the manner in which he had been practicing within the last six years, the circumstances, including his prior depositions, sufficiently establish that he had practiced within the last six years in the same area of health care at issue in the case, and his report stated that he was familiar with patients of the type involved. Physician's prior depositions do not materially conflict with his report, so that Section 2-622(e) deposition of physician is not justified. Court should have granted request for contempt finding, rather than dismiss complaint with prejudice, as Plaintiff had good-faith basis to refuse to produce physician for deposition in that confusion existed, at time of filing, as to whether disclosure of reviewing physician's identity was required. (ZENOFF and BURKE, concurring.)