ABUSE
NEGLECT
In re L.O., 2016 WL 6461740 (Ill. App. Ct.). On child welfare agency’s petition alleging neglect, juvenile court made child ward of court, named agency as guardian, and ordered mother to complete certain tasks. Mother appealed. Agency’s failure to meet statutory requirement that it file service plan within 45 days of placement or before disposition did not deprive trial court of its authority to order mother to complete certain tasks as part of its dispositional ruling.
JURY TRIALS
People v. Jackson, 974 N.E.2d 855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Prosecutor’s equating penetration with contact during closing statement in child sex abuse trial did not amount to plain error. Prosecutor gave correct definition at beginning of closing that penetration required proof of even slight intrusion, and court’s instructions to jury also correctly stated the law.
REGISTRIES
Burris v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 951 N.E.2d 1202 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). Mother who challenged listing in child abuse and neglect registry was not entitled to an administrative hearing to determine if name should be removed since appellate court had affirmed trial court’s finding and entered judicial findings of child neglect; under Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, a child welfare agency is bound by previous finding of child abuse or neglect and may not conduct a hearing to review a court’s finding based on same facts.
Slater v. Department of Children & Family Servs., 953 N.E.2d 44 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). In proceeding in which 17-year-old mother challenged listing of her name in child abuse and neglect registry, administrative law judge improperly determined that mother neglected her baby after baby fell on colored pencil that mother was using for art project and punctured her lung; mother had history of being a good mother, was concerned about baby while she was working on art project, and presence of baby in same room while she worked and supervised her was not neglect.
TRANSLATION
People v. Betance-Lopez, 2015 WL 351433 (Ill. App. Ct.). Trial court could rely on English-language transcript of Spanish-speaking defendant’s interview with police as substantive evidence in bench trial for predatory criminal sexual assault of his six-year-old step-granddaughter. There was no reason to require court to rely solely on live interpretation conducted during interview itself, since interpreter who prepared transcript could listen to recording to ensure accurate translation.
CUSTODY
THIRD PARTIES
In re Scarlett Z.-D., 28 N.E.3d 776 (Ill. 2015). Adoptive mother, who adopted child while in relationship with boyfriend, was not equitably estopped from challenging former boyfriend’s standing to seek custody, visitation, and child support. Mother did not misrepresent that he was child’s biological or adoptive father, mother’s adoption of child did not pertain to boyfriend, and boyfriend’s relationship with child was contingent on his relationship with mother, who was child’s only legal parent
DELINQUENCY
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
In re J.M., 8 N.E.3d 1213 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). Trial court improperly found that 13-year-old juvenile waived his Miranda rights and denied juvenile’s motion to suppress his confession made after receiving the Miranda warnings. There were several facts indicating juvenile’s inability to understand his Miranda rights, such as having a developmental delay, a mental capacity comparable to a seven-year-old, and an inability to read the Miranda warning form as he could only read at the first-grade level.
PLACEMENT
In re Shelby R., 995 N.E.2d 990 (Ill. 2013). Trial court erred in placing youth in custody after she was adjudicated delinquent for underage drinking and had her probation revoked. Youth could not be placed in department of juvenile justice custody for underage drinking because state statute prohibited placement for acts that could not result in incarceration if committed by an adult.
REPRESENTATION
In re Edgar C., 24 N.E.3d 346 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). Juvenile adjudicated delinquent for committing robbery, theft, and battery failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel at trial for failing to challenge Terry stop (an officer must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that someone was involved in criminal activity or is armed and dangerous in order to seize that person). It was unclear which of two officers actually conducted the stop and impossible on appeal to determine the totality of facts and circumstances known to that officer and which facts contributed to his suspicion.
DEPENDENCY
ADJUDICATION
In re M.M., 2015 WL 302003 (Ill. App. Ct.). Children were found neglected while living with father after he repeatedly struck one of his paramour’s children. Trial court did not state specific reasons for its decision to award custody of children to the child welfare agency. Court was required to state that the respondent mother was unable or unwilling to care for her children but merely found her fit and provided no explanation for its finding that placement with the agency was necessary.
CONTINUANCES
In re S.B., 2015 WL 5004558 (Ill. App. Ct.). Trial court abused its discretion in denying mother’s request, through counsel, for continuance of hearing on neglect petition. Even though denial did not impact due process, and counsel’s request was not supported by affidavit stating what mother might testify to, her right to care and custody of children was at stake. Trial court knew she was on way to courthouse from prison, driven by correctional officers, and trip was taking longer due to heavy snowfall. Mother had no control over weather or schedule of corrections department.
DISPOSITION
In re A.S., 9 N.E.3d 615 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). The lower court properly found biological mother was unfit and father was a fit parent. Despite father’s parental fitness, the decision to remove minor from father’s care was proper in light of the fact that there was evidence of father’s inability to provide a safe environment for minor while wife remained in home. Wife, suspected of suffering from substance abuse and possibly mental health issues, was uncooperative with caseworkers in most interactions, verbally attacking and threatening to sue the agency.
In re Rico L., 2012 WL 3064647 (Ill. App. Ct.). Trial court properly found mother was unable to care for child at dispositional hearing held after it had ordered protective supervision while child remained in her custody. Court retained dispositional authority over the case based on initial adjudication.
EVIDENCE
In re J.C., 966 N.E.2d 453 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Though trial court erred in admitting records far in excess of the indicated reports allowed under the Juvenile Court Act, records that were essentially complete Child Protective Services files, this error was harmless. Despite this error, testimony regarding mother’s use of heroin, exposure of children to heroin, and lack of compliance with treatment supported dependency finding.
In re L.S., 11 N.E.3d 349 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). The trial court properly admitted 12 still images that were acquired through a live video feed taken via a web camera. An off-duty police officer saw a child being sexually abused while using a digital program to view his pets on vacation. In following the analysis of People v. Taylor, the lower court applied the following factors and found the images were reliable: (1) device’s capability of record; (2) competency of the operator; (3) proper operation of the device;(4) chain of custody of images; (5) identification of the persons and locations depicted; and (6) explanation of any copying or duplication process.
In re R.R., 949 N.E.2d 209 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). Trial court’s dependency finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where physician’s report indicated child’s skull fracture resulted from physical abuse; as an expert witness, the physician could reasonably rely on information provided by the agency in addition to her examination and other records, despite any hearsay contained therein.
FAILURE TO PROTECT
In re A.P., 981 N.E.2d 336 (Ill. 2012). Trial court improperly found child neglected based on single incident where mother’s boyfriend failed to supervise child resulting in a burn to her face. Nothing in the record suggested that mother failed to protect the child as there was no evidence her boyfriend had previously maltreated children or she should have been able to foresee he was likely to do so.
In re J.S., 993 N.E.2d 575 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). Circuit court correctly adjudicated child dependent after mother admitted to telling her to lie about sexual abuse by her boyfriend. Even if the sexual abuse did not in fact occur, mother’s claim that she told her to lie out of fear of boyfriend supported another ground for dependency since she had not protected her daughter by allowing a violent person to remain in the home.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
In re Barion S., 983 N.E.2d 57 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). In adjudicatory hearing, medical evidence showing an inorganic failure to thrive was rebutted by fact that child had also been diagnosed with a gastrointestinal problem, caseworker’s testimony that mother had adequate food in the home and used proper techniques and frequency of feeding, and records showing mother had repeatedly sought medical assistance.
NEGLECT
In re A.P., 965 N.E.2d 441 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Trial court’s dependency finding was improper where the only allegation was the mother’s boyfriend allowed the child to be burned in the bathtub. There was no indication that the children had been neglected or abused in the past and the boyfriend had immediately sought medial attention after the bathtub incident. A preponderance of the evidence that a home environment is injurious to a child requires showing more than one accident.
In re C.H., 2017 WL 4117799 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). Trial court was not authorized to order that minor child was dependent and place custody of child with child welfare agency after making finding that father was fit parent in dispositional neglect proceeding. Although trial court expressed concern with father’s ability to sufficiently take care of child’s medical needs, father did not contribute to injurious environment leading to neglect proceeding and complied with all service tasks.
In re J.S., 977 N.E.2d 879 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Where mother appealed dependency ruling arguing that child should have been adjudicated as in need of services, trial court did not err in finding him neglected. Finding was supported by evidence that mother did not exhaust possible services before requesting agency custody including that she failed to request special education services or agree to allow an aunt or the child’s father to have custody.
In re Mariah O., 2016 WL 5846712 (Ill. App. Ct.). Evidence was sufficient to support finding that minor children were abused and neglected and their environment was injurious to their welfare. Mother’s partner, who resided with children and mother, tested positive for cocaine, methadone, and cannabis. Mother violated safety plan requiring children to live with family member. Mother and partner made threatening statements and yelled profanities at child welfare agency investigator, and mother had previously been found to have abused another older child.
NONOFFENDING PARENT
In re Ashli T., 6 N.E.3d 261 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). Where child was removed from mother, circuit court erred in dismissing dependency petition and granting father permanent custody after finding there was probable cause child was abused. Juvenile Court Act did not authorize a permanent custody order at preliminary hearings, and while court could properly place child with father in the interim, a permanent custody order should only be issued after adjudication and disposition.
PLACEMENT
In re Fatima A., 27 N.E.3d 154 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). Denial of specialized foster care services was in best interests of child who had multiple allergies, severe eczema, and behavior problems. Although child’s guardian had to administer prescription medications daily, take child to and from therapy appointments weekly, adhere to child’s strict diet, and keep her home hypoallergenic, child’s needs were currently being met. Child’s school had not reported any behavior problems, and child’s allergies were under control.
REASONABLE EFFORTS
In re William H., 945 N.E.2d 81 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011).Trial court properly found that child welfare agency made reasonable efforts to prevent removal in disposition hearing before placing the child in care; though some assessments were delayed, the agency provided the most important service by arranging counseling for the child who refused to visit with his mother.
REGISTRIES
Julie Q v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 963 N.E.2d 401 (Ill. Ct. App. 2011). Child welfare agency’s determination that mother should be indicated for child neglect in state central register was not supported by the evidence and required reversal. Alleged incident involving mother consuming alcohol and locking child in her room lacked strong support and caseworker admitted to relying on notes of investigator whom she had never met and who did not testify when she made her decision to indicate plaintiff for neglect.
Karen Shilvock-Cinefro v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 4 N.E.3d 532 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). Agency was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that mother’s conduct of tying or confining child with duct tape and rope in a van created a substantial risk of physical injury to child that would likely cause death, disfigurement, impairment of physical or emotional health, or loss or impairment of any bodily function. A potential car accident scenario where the child might not be able to escape the van was not enough to support child abuse finding.
REPRESENTATION
In re Ch. W., 948 N.E.2d 641 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). Trial court properly found father’s counsel’s deficient performance at dependency proceeding did not prejudice father; counsel’s failure to cross-examine child welfare agency investigator about need to be more direct in interview with child about sexual abuse and failure to review and present recording of investigator’s interview was not manifestly erroneous.
SEX OFFENDERS
In re K.B., 973 N.E.2d 470 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Trial court properly adjudicated child dependent where mother allowed daughter to be cared for by a convicted sex offender while she was incarcerated. Though mother contended that her boyfriend had completed sex offender treatment, she failed to provide evidence of this at trial sufficient to rebut the state’s allegation that the child’s safety was at risk.
STIPULATIONS
In re A.L., 969 N.E.2d 531 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Trial court did not violate mother’s due process by accepting her stipulation to neglect adjudication without inquiring into factual basis of allegation. Though the better practice would be to do so, the allegations were well known to the parties based on the shelter care hearing. Finding could also be based on the fact that the mother’s husband had died from a drug overdose, his substance abuse caused the children’s neglect, and mother presented no evidence that neglect was cured by his death.
TESTIMONY
In re J.B., 984 N.E.2d 1197 (Ill. Ct. App. 2013). Trial court properly found children dependent as to father because he sexually assaulted his daughter and his mother’s foster child. Fact that detective investigated incident some months later due to a high caseload did not require the court to discount her testimony as trial court is in best position to weigh credibility.
LIABILITY
CHILDREN'S REPRESENTATIVES
Child representatives are absolutely immune from liability when working as advocates within the scope of their court-appointed duties. The child’s representative acts as an arm of the court in assisting in a neutral determination of the child’s best interests and absolute immunity is essential to allow the representative to fulfill his duties without threat of
harassment. CLP summary
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
ABANDONMENT
In re H.B., 976 N.E.2d 1193 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Where aunt petitioned for termination, but the court found she prevented mother from having contact with child, trial court’s finding that mother had not abandoned child was proper. State statutory section allowing termination of parental rights where a parent failed to maintain contact with child was properly read as having two independent exceptions, either that the parent could not maintain contact or was prevented by a court or agency, thus court was correct that aunt’s impeding contact rebutted allegation.
DEFAULT
In re Haley D., 2011 WL 4999258 (Ill.). In father’s appeal of trial court’s order terminating his parental rights after it had entered a default against him, vacatur of entry of default, rather than remand to trial court, was appropriate remedy for trial court’s error. Trial court entered default without proof that state had attempted to serve father with termination petition. Evidence showed father had secured counsel after entry of default, made progress in meeting his case goals, and had significant interests at stake.
DEVELOPMENTAL DELAYS
In re S.L., 980 N.E.2d 796 (Ill. Ct. App. 2012). Judgment terminating mother’s parental rights was not supported by the record. Primary reason for termination was mother’s developmental delay, but testimony of numerous witnesses failed to show how mother’s limited intellectual abilities made her unable to parent child. Fact that mother was parenting an older child and cared for boyfriend’s children without incident also weighed against finding.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
In re Brandon K., 2017 WL 2982521(Ill. App. Ct.). Jury verdict finding father guilty of first-degree murder of children’s mother qualified as “conviction” triggering statutory presumption of depravity. Presumption that father was depraved and therefore unfit to care for and protect his minor children supported termination of parental rights and did not require child welfare agency to show father had more than one criminal conviction or that murder conviction had been accompanied by finding of brutal and heinous conduct.
EMOTIONAL ABUSE
In re Mi.S., 2016 WL 5940665 (Ill. App. Ct.). Father’s parental rights to his three children were terminated based on extreme cruelty after he violently killed mother of children in front of youngest child. Plain language of statute did not limit “extreme cruelty” to physical cruelty, and interpreting phrase to exclude extreme emotional cruelty would not be in keeping with considerations of best interest and welfare of children.
FAILURE TO IMPROVE
In re F.P., 19 N.E.3d 227 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). Court upheld termination of mother’s parental rights based on her failure to make reasonable progress toward reunification within statutory nine-month period after neglect adjudication. Lack of adoptive placement did not preclude finding that termination was in children’s best interest.
In re Shauntae P., 967 N.E.2d 968 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Trial court properly terminated mother’s parental rights to her daughters based on her failure to maintain a reasonable degree of care or responsibility in that she was repeatedly incarcerated, failed to engage in substance abuse treatment as required, and visited sporadically. Since mother had moved out of state, she had not seen her children except by webcam for over a year at the time of trial.
FITNESS
In re L.B., 2015 WL 3875716 (Ill. App. Ct.). Evidence supported finding that termination of mother’s parental rights served best interests of child returned to her biological father as well as best interests of other child placed in foster care. Determination that one child’s father was fit parent did not preclude termination of mother’s rights based on her unfitness. Mother was unable to provide for children’s basic needs, such as physical safety, welfare, shelter, health, and clothing. Child placed with father was identifying with father and stepmother and developing community ties.
INCARCERATION
In re J.B., 19 N.E.3d 1273 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). Mother’s due process rights were not violated when trial court found her unfit even though agency failed to provide her services while incarcerated. The court relied on events that occurred before mother’s incarceration, including mother’s severe physical abuse of child, evidence of prior child abuse, and second child’s presence in the home when mother beat first child.
In re Jane Doe, 333 P.3d 874 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). Lower court properly heard maternal grandparents’ petition for termination of mother’s parental rights based on mother’s failure to maintain a relationship with minor. Mother had an alcohol and drug problem and during her incarceration she never visited or contacted minor. Since minor was born, maternal grandparents raised her for most of her upbringing. Grandparents paid for daycare, picked minor up and dropped her off at daycare, and cared for her when mother was passed out.
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
In re M.I., 2015 WL 7421602 (Ill. App. Ct.). Child welfare agency failed to prove father, whose intelligence quotient (IQ) was only 58, was unfit parent for failure to make reasonable progress toward return of minor child within specified time after neglect adjudication. Psychological exam noted that services provided to father needed to be modified to take into consideration his intellectual deficits, but no modifications were made. Agency left father to navigate community social services network alone and used his inability to do so as grounds to terminate parental rights.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
In re Quadaysha C., 949 N.E.2d 712 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). Remand of order terminating mother’s parental rights was required where the attorney that represented her previously represented the CASA for her children; same attorney representing different parties in a case is per se ineffective assistance of counsel and evidence of an actual conflict was not required.
In re S.W., 2015 WL 3385688 (Ill. App. Ct.). Court acted within its discretion in denying mother’s requests for continuance of unfitness and best interests hearings in termination of parental rights proceeding. Mother was appointed and later fired four court-appointed attorneys. Court continued trial twice to allow fourth court-appointed attorney time to prepare and schedule best interests hearing to accommodate mother’s schedule.
In re Tamera W., 968 N.E.2d 707 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Trial court properly addressed potential conflict of interest in termination trial when it asked whether attorneys representing father had prior knowledge of case since their office represented the mother as a dependent youth. Since none of the attorneys in the public defender’s division had been employed by the office when the mother was a client, and had no personal knowledge of the case, there was no per se conflict of interest.
SERVICE OF PROCESS
In re Jamari R., 2016 WL 5704108 (Ill. App. Ct.). Father’s appearance in termination of parental rights proceeding following defective service by publication did not retroactively validate adjudicatory and dispositional orders issued without personal jurisdiction by trial court before his appearance. Although child welfare agency conducted diligent inquiry to effectuate service on father before resorting to service by publication, service by publication was defective because last names of child and mother were misspelled.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
In re Joshua S., 973 N.E.2d 1046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Criminal charges were brought after mother left her newborn child under a tree. A settlement in the criminal trial, where the state agreed to not use the abandonment as a termination ground, was unenforceable because agreement violated child’s right to protection and deprived court and guardian ad litem with ability to exercise their best interest duties.
VISITATION
STANDING
In re J.T.H., 2015 WL 5693043 (Ill. App. Ct.). Biological mother’s former same-sex partner brought action seeking visitation with mother’s child. Partner did not have standing to petition for visitation despite intent to adopt and consistent actions to form close and enduring familial relationship with child, including regular visitation calendar, sharing of costs, and joint attendance at events for first seven years of child’s life. Equitable adoption doctrine does not apply to visitation proceedings but is intended to allow person who was accepted and treated as natural or adopted child, but never formally adopted, to share inheritance of foster or stepparent.