Child Law

Respondent filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to SCR 307(a)(1) seeking vacatur of an order preventing her from copying transcripts from dispositional and permanency hearings for her minor children and sharing them on social media sites. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly considered the confidentiality and privacy interests of the minor children in entering its order and, as a result, did not abuse its discretion. (HOFFMAN and MARTIN, concurring)

Respondent appealed from the circuit court orders finding that she was an unfit parent of her three minor children and that the termination of respondent’s parental rights would be in the children’s best interests. On appeal, respondent argued that the trial court's findings that she failed to make reasonable efforts, failed to make reasonable progress, failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, and exhibited habitual drunkenness or addition was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the evidence contained in the record established that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. (HARRIS and LANNERD, concurring)

Respondent appealed from the judgment of the circuit court terminating his parental rights to his minor daughter and allowing the petitioners to adopt her, arguing that the trial court erred when it found he was an unfit parent. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err in its finding that respondent was unfit because he failed to show a reasonable concern, interest, and responsibility for his daughter. The appellate court also rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court ruling was against public policy because it allegedly awarded petitioner for moving the litigation from Florida to Illinois. (McLAREN and KENNEDY, concurring)

Respondent appealed from a trial court order finding that her minor child was neglected and awarding guardianship to DCFS. Respondent argued that the trial court’s findings of neglect were against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the court should have instead made a finding of no-fault dependency. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the trial court’s findings of neglect were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where respondent did not take corrective action to improve her relationship with her child or his living situation and that it was not persuaded that the trial court should have made a finding of no-fault dependency under the circumstances. (FITZGERALD SMITH and HOWSE, concurring)

Respondent appealed from an order of the trial court finding him an abuser and unfit to care for his minor child, arguing that the trial court’s findings violated his due process rights and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court vacated the trial courts orders and remanded, finding that respondent’s due process rights were violated when the trial court dismissed the charges of abuse at the conclusion of an adjudicatory hearing but did not then discharge the minor to the respondent in contravention of statutory law and that the trial court erred when it did not hold a hearing on the dismissal to determine if it was in the minor’s best interest. (BOIE and MOORE,, concurring)

Respondent filed an appeal challenging a trial court order finding that her minor daughters were neglected due to an injurious environment. The appellate court affirmed, finding that, contrary to respondent’s argument, previous statements alleging abuse and neglect that were made by the minor children were corroborated by additional evidence in the record. (REYES and D.B. WALKER, concurring)

In a case involving minors whose biological mother was a member of a native tribe located in Alaska, the trial court granted a motion to transfer filed by the tribe under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The biological parents objected to the transfer, but died before the hearing on the motion. The foster parents filed a motion to intervene and to stay the order. The trial court denied the foster parents’ motion but stayed the transfer pending appeal. The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding that the trial court erred when it found that the foster parents lacked standing to intervene and when it found that their death rendered the parents’ written objection to the transfer of jurisdiction a nullity. (HARRIS and DOHERTY, concurring)