Child Law

In re J.R., a Minor

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.

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.
View Full Text of Legislation

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

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

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

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

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.)

In re Vicente G., Reyna G. and America G.

In re Vicente G., Reyna G. and America G.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Guardianship
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-10-2833
Decision Date: 
Monday, March 28, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 1st Div.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded with directions.
Justice: 
HALL
Court terminated wardship and DCFS's guardianship of three minor children on basis of DCFS procedural rule. Court erred in failing to make written findings that termination of guardianship was in children's best interests, and in failing to conduct hearing as to fitness of mother, as order of termination woudl result in de facto return of children to mother, who court had previously found them in injurious environment and found mother unable to care for them. Court is not required to consider only current information in its best interest determination. (LAMPKIN and ROCHFORD, concurring.)

In re Paul L. F., a Minor

In re Paul L. F., a Minor
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Termination of Parental Rights
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 2-10-0749
Decision Date: 
Thursday, March 24, 2011
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Winnebago Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
McLAREN
Court terminated parental rights of mother, who during termination proceedings was represented by ten different attorneys, one of whom reprersented two other parties and one of whom represented one other party during course of proceedings. Per se conflict of interest requires reversal of termination, as prejudice is presumed in unacceptable rotation of representation. (ZENOFF, concurring; HUDSON, dissenting.)

Bemis v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

Bemis v. Safeco Insurance Company of America
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Class Actions
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 5-09-0178
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 25, 2011
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Madison Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
SPOMER
Court certified as class action Plaintiff chiropractor's breach of contract count, alleging that insurer assigned medical payments coverage benefits for its insured, but insurer made biased reduction of payments to assignee. Certification was improper, as evidence would be required, on individualized basis, to determine whether insurer breached its contract to pay usual and customary charge for service for each class member. Determination of whether contract provided for assignments or authorizations for payment is potential individualized issue preventing class certification. (STEWART, concurring; DONOVAN, specially concurring.)