Child Law

In re T.W., a Minor

In re T.W., a Minor
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Juvenile Sex Offenders
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-09-0197
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HOWSE
(Court opinion corrected 7/9/10.) Respondent minor was adjudicated a delinquent upon conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse and aggravated criminal sexual assault upon 6-year old child in men's locker room at YMCA swimming pool area. No ineffective assistance of counsel by his attorney, from Evanston Community Defender's Officer, failing to recuse himself because that office could not pay for a DNA expert; defense counsel subjected State's expert to thorough cross-examination, including testimony that State's expert could not tell how seminal stain got onto child's swimsuit; and overwhelming nature of DNA evidence and victim's unrebutted testimony such that reasonable probability does not exist that any mistakes in strategy or tactics by counsel would have resulted in different outcome. (FITZGERALD SMITH and LAVIN, concurring.)

Senate Bill 3386

Topic: 
Guardianship of minors
(Wilhelmi, D-Joliet; C. Gordon, D-Coal City) was signed into law on Tuesday with an effective date of January 1, 2011. It makes four changes to make it relevant to today’s society, which are as follows: • It gives the court jurisdiction to proceed on a petition for guardianship if the parent or parents have “voluntarily relinquished physical custody of the minor.” This language is borrowed from the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, and it complies with the superior rights of parents as required by the courts. Because the courts have repeatedly interpreted this language, it provides plenty of guidance on what this means. • It expands the requirements for a parent or parents to consent to a guardianship. It will require that the parent or parents must execute a written document that is dated and notarized or personally appear in open court and consent to the petition. • It provides a procedure for terminating a guardianship that is completely absent in the current statute. The court must terminate the guardianship if the parent establishes (by a preponderance of the evidence) that a material change in the circumstances of the minor or the parent has occurred since the guardianship was started unless the guardian establishes (by clear and convincing evidence) that the termination of the guardianship is not in the minor’s best interests. It then provides a list of criteria to help guide the court in making this decision, such as the ability of the parent to provide a safe, nurturing environment for the minor. This language complies with current case law. • It repeals the archaic fitness language because termination of parental rights is not a goal of guardianship petitions in the probate act—guardianships are not designed to be permanent.
View Full Text of Legislation

In re T.S., a Minor

In re T.S., a Minor
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Abuse and Neglect
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 5-10-0091
Decision Date: 
Thursday, July 15, 2010
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Randolph Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
WEXSTTEN
Court entered order placing custody and guardianship of minor with the biological father of minor's half-sister. Court failed to comply with several aspects of Section 2-28 of Juvenile Court Act, by misconstruing "return home" goal as possibly including home other than respondent mother's home, where minor had been living prior to her removal from home. Court erred in not providing in writing, on form permanency order, why permanency goal was selected and why preceding goals were ruled out, as these are mandatory requirements. (WELCH and CHAPMAN, concurring.)

In re: Rodney S., a Minor

In re: Rodney S., a Minor
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Juvenile Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 4-09-0118
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Logan Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and vacated in part; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
STEIGMANN
Ten-year old boy was found guilty of two counts of aggravated battery against his bus monitor, and was adjudicated a delinquent minor and placed in custody of DCFS and sentenced to probation until age 21. Minor was not denied right to counsel because his court-appointed attorney also acted as his GAL, as such representation is not a per se conflict nor actual conflict. Order of adjudication should be amended to reflect one count per one-act, one-crime rule, as State alleged two legal theories based on a closely related series of acts occurring on the same day, and State did not differentiate between the blows the minor inflicted on the bus monitor in the charging instrument. Aggravated battery here was not a forcible felony; language in forcible felony statute demonstrates that legislature intended to exclude battery which did not result in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement. Thus, minor's sentence is void because it exceeded court's authority to sentence up to 5 years probation per Section 5-715 of Juvenile Court Act. (TURNER and POPE, concurring.)

Public Act 96-1087

Topic: 
Sexting
(Senger, R-Naperville; Sen. Silverstein, D-Chicago) provides that a minor who distributes indecent visual depictions of another minor may be subject to a petition for adjudication and adjudged a minor in need of supervision. If the minor is found in need of supervision, he or she may be ordered to obtain counseling or other supportive services or required to perform community service. Effective January 1, 2011.
View Full Text of Legislation

In re A.M., a Minor

In re A.M., a Minor
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Termination of Parental Rights
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 3-09-0863
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Fulton Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
O'BRIEN
Court found minor's father in default and terminated his parental rights while he was incarcerated in Colorado. Father did not object to court's jurisdiction at the four hearings he attended prior to adjudication, dispositional, termination, and best interest hearings, and thus waived the requirement that he be provided notice of proceedings. Father was served with termination petition and summons, and thus had actual notice of proceedings and had a duty to follow progress of case, but failed to respond or to contact his attorney, thus voluntarily chose not to participate in proceedings. Risk that father was erroneously deprived of his parental rights was minimal when balanced against State's interest in preventing delay in adjudicating parental rights and preserving best interest of minor. (McDADE and LYTTON, concurring.)

In re R.W., a Minor

In re R.W., a Minor
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Juvenile Law
Abuse and Neglect
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 3-09-1028
Decision Date: 
Thursday, June 10, 2010
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Peoria Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
McDADE
One purpose of Juvenile Court Act is to assist parents to correct their parenting flaws while ensuring safety and proper care of children. Problems of cleanliness of home and yard had been corrected by the time DCFS file neglect petition. Court's observation that cleanliness had been recurring problem was speculative and contrary to purpose of the Act. Thus, finding of neglect of seven-year old child reversed and remanded. (Dissent filed.)

In re M.M.

In re M.M.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Paternity
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-09-3468
Decision Date: 
Friday, May 21, 2010
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
LAMPKIN
Circuit court properly entered finding of nonpaternity of minor based on DNA testing although Respondent and child's mother had signed voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (VAP) and he signed birth certificate as the father. A minor, by and through the GAL, has standing to challenge the paternity of a man who signed a VAP and birth certificate, but was later found not to be the biological father based on DNA test results, as minor was not in privity with either party when they executed VAP.

In re the Adoption of S.G.

In re the Adoption of S.G.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Adoption Act
Termination of Parental Rights
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 4-09-0912
Decision Date: 
Monday, May 3, 2010
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Champaign Co.
Holding: 
Appeal dismissed in part; judgment affirmed in part.
Justice: 
TURNER
Court terminated the parental rights of both parents of a four-year old child, whose paternal grandparents then filed petition for adoption. Five days later, foster parents filed, in a separate case, a petition for adoption, and court consolidated the two cases. When a natural parent's parental rights and interests are completely severed by the termination of parental rights, the rights and interests of the natural parent's relatives are also completely severed, and they thus have no rights to the minor, and court properly struck grandparents' response to foster parents' petition for adoption. Even after consolidation, cases continued to have separate identities in the trial court, thus notice of appeal as to ruling in one case must be made within 30 days of entry of judgment in that case, and Rule 304(a) finding was not required.