Child Law

In re Ch. W.

In re Ch. W.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Abuse and Neglect
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 4-09-0925, 4-10-0831 Cons.
Decision Date: 
Thursday, March 10, 2011
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Champaign Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
TURNER
After adjudicatory hearing, court found two minor children neglected and dependent, and made minors wards of court and appointed DCFS as their guardian. Adoptive father of minors appealed, contending he was denied effective assistance of counsel and due process, and that finding of neglect was in error. Although his counsel's performance was deficient in cross-examination of DCFS investigator about minor's statements to her, Respondent was not prejudiced, as some of questions investigator asked minor were open-ended. Court would not have been bound by other judge's ruling in criminal case against Respondent, as sixth-amendment concerns apply to criminal but not neglect proceedings. Testimony of two investigators was sufficient to prove neglect as alleged in petition.(KNECHT and APPLETON, concurring.)

In re M.P., J.P., and C.P., Minors

In re M.P., J.P., and C.P., Minors
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Guardianship
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 3-09-0996
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 18, 2011
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Peoria Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McDADE
After dispositional hearing, Court adjudicated Respondent a fit parent and allowed her to retain custody of her three minor children, but adjudicated the minors wards of court and appointed DCFS as their guardian, to ensure that Respondent was able to provide proper environment. Court properly divided custody and guardianship of minors, as court found that Respondent was fit but guardianship was appropriate given previous incidents of domestic violence, and Respondent allowing father back into the home, prior to imprisonment of minors' father. (CARTER and HOLDRIDGE, concurring.)

In re William H.

In re William H.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Termination of Parental Rights
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-10-2563
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 4, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
FITZGERALD SMITH
Court entered orders adjudging minor child a ward of court and holding that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the minor from the home. Major obstacle to reunification efforts was that minor did not want to have any contact with respondent mother, who had history of alcohol abuse and domestic violence in home, and minor became fearful and anxious upon discussing her. More than ample evidence was presented to show reasonable efforts had been undertaken. "Best interest" analysis is key to wardship decision, not a finding as to whether reasonable efforts toward reunification were employed. Child's best interest takes precedence over any other consideration, including natural parents' right to custody. (HOWSE and EPSTEIN, concurring.)

In re S.B., a Minor

In re S.B., a Minor
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Juvenile Sex Offenders
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 3-09-0095
Decision Date: 
Monday, March 7, 2011
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Peoria Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
CARTER
Respondent, age 14 at time of incident, was subject of juvenile petition alleging that he committed aggravated criminal sexual assault of a child under age nine. Court dismissed aggravated criminal sexual assault count, and found Respondent "not not guilty" of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Once Respondent reached age 18, State filed motion to compel Respondent to register as sex offender. Respondent's status for purposes of this case is a juvenile, not an adult; as case remained in juvenile system, he thus retained his status as a juvenile. Applying adult criminal system procedures to Respondent does not comport with enhanced protection principle of Juvenile Court Act. (McDADE, concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.)

Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie School Dist # 204

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie School Dist # 204
Civil Court
School Law
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 10-2485 & 10-3635 Cons.
Decision Date: 
March 1, 2011
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiffs-students’ request to enter permanent injunction against defendants-School District officials that essentially allowed instant plaintiffs and other students ability to wear clothing or personal items bearing slogan “Be Happy, Not Gay” even though defendants believed that such slogan violated school rule forbidding derogatory comments pertaining to sexual orientation. Defendants allowed some students to participate in day of silence in support of homosexual students, and thus defendants could not stifle criticism of homosexuality where instant slogan was not inflammatory. Moreover, Ct. rejected defendants’ argument that it had reasonable belief that slogan posed threat of substantial disruption in view of evidence that some homosexual students experienced harassment in school and one plaintiff experienced harassment from other students sympathetic to homosexual students. Also entry of permanent injunction was not moot even though both plaintiffs no longer attended school since injunction covered all students at instant high school.

In re B.G., a Minor

In re B.G., a Minor
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Termination of Parental Rights
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-10-2893
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
HOFFMAN
Circuit court entered order vacating its prior decision terminating the parental rights of Respondent mother. Court had ordered termination after full evidentiary hearing, and affirmed judgment on merits in resolving the direct appeal. As substantive contentions asserted in mother's Section 2-1401 petition for postjudgment relief are identical to issues decided in termination proceeding, and parties to both proceedings are the same, res judicata precluded further litigation of mother's unfitness or the best interest of the minor. (LAMPKIN and ROCHFORD, concurring.)

In re K.D., a Minor

In re K.D., a Minor
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Abuse and Neglect
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-09-2481
Decision Date: 
Friday, February 4, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
GARCIA
Court appointed DCFS as guardian of minor, then age 16, in a delinquency proceeding after making minor a ward of court. Section 5-710(1)(a)(iv), as amended in 2008, of Juvenile Court Act confers authority upon court to determine that an independent basis of abuse, neglect, or dependency exists, without a neglect petition having been filed. Court had authority to find that minor was neglected based on social investigation report that neither parent would allow minor to live with him and minor had no known residence, which was independent basis for neglect finding apart from facts underlying delinquency petition, and thus court had authority to place minor in guardianship of DCFS as a condition of his probation. (R.E. GORDON, concurring; CAHILL, dissenting.)

In re S.J., a Minor

In re S.J., a Minor
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Termination of Parental Rights
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-10-1406
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
CUNNINGHAM
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.)

In re Joshua B., a Minor

In re Joshua B., a Minor
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Juvenile Law
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-09-0920
Decision Date: 
Friday, January 14, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed as modified.
Justice: 
EPSTEIN
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.)

In re Guardianship of A.G.G., a Minor

In re Guardianship of A.G.G., a Minor
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Guardianship
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 5-10-0353
Decision Date: 
Thursday, January 6, 2011
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Jackson Co.
Holding: 
Reversed; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
GOLDENHERSH
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.)