Case Title: In re R. C.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 88891, 89018

State: illinois

Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
Docket Nos. 88891, 89018 cons.Agenda 22September 2000.
In re R.C., a Minor (R.W. et al., Appellants, v.
D.C., Appellee).
Opinion filed March 2, 2001.
JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the opinion of the court:
In this direct appeal, we are asked to review the circuit
court's determination that section 1(D)(p) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS
50/1(D)(p) (West 1998)) is unconstitutional. We find the statute constitutional,
and accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings.
 
BACKGROUND
The parties do not dispute some basic background facts. D.C.
became pregnant in 1994. In January 1995, as her due date approached, D.C.
contacted Lutheran Child and Family Services (Lutheran) regarding adoption
placement for her soon-to-be-born child. Lutheran began to consider placement
options for the child and eventually narrowed the choice to two couples, one of
which was R.W. and C.W., the petitioners in this case. On February 4, 1995, D.C.
gave birth to R.C. at Ottawa Community Hospital. At that time, D.C. signed an
agreement giving Lutheran temporary custody of R.C. for placement purposes. She
also indicated that, of the two families being considered by Lutheran, she would
prefer that R.C. be placed with petitioners. Two days after the birth, D.C. was
transferred to the hospital's psychiatric ward. On February 7, 1995, three
days after R.C.'s birth, Lutheran placed the child with petitioners. So far as
the record reveals, R.C. has lived with them ever since. D.C. was discharged
from the hospital within two weeks, but entered and departed psychiatric
institutions on multiple occasions during the next several months, and never
signed a surrender of parental rights. The alleged birth father surrendered his
parental rights soon after the child's birth and is not a party to this
action.
On April 7, 1995, R.W. and C.W. filed the instant petition
for adoption. Petitioners contend that D.C.'s consent to the adoption is not
required because she is an unfit parent as defined in section 1(D)(p) of the
Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(p) (West 1998)). That section provides that one
ground upon which an individual may be found unfit is
"(p) Inability to discharge parental
    responsibilities supported by competent evidence from a psychiatrist,
    licensed clinical social worker, or clinical psychologist of mental
    impairment, mental illness or mental retardation as defined in Section 1116
    of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code, or developmental
    disability as defined in Section 1106 of that Code, and there is
    sufficient justification to believe that the inability to discharge parental
    responsibilities shall extend beyond a reasonable time period. However, this
    subdivision (p) shall not be construed so as to permit a licensed clinical
    social worker to conduct any medical diagnosis to determine mental illness
    or mental impairment." 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(p) (West 1998).
On the same day that R.W. and C.W. filed their petition, the
trial court entered an interim order terminating the father's parental rights
and awarding temporary custody to the foster parents until further order. The
case encountered numerous procedural delays, including changes of counsel,
stays, and an interlocutory appeal. In August 1998, counsel for D.C. filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that section 1(D)(p) was
unconstitutional and was preempted by the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. (1994)). In January 2000 the
circuit court entered an order rejecting D.C.'s contention regarding the ADA
but finding section 1(D)(p) unconstitutional on its face. The court found that
the provision was "facially vague and violates due process[,] facially
violates substantive due process[,] facially violates procedural due process[,]
and facially violates equal protection."
Petitioners and R.C., through her guardian ad litem,
filed a notice of appeal. The circuit court allowed the Illinois Attorney
General to intervene in the case, and the Attorney General filed a separate
notice of appeal. We have consolidated the appeals, which lie directly to this
court because the circuit court declared an Illinois statute invalid. 134 Ill.
2d R. 302(a)(1). Additionally, we permitted the Cook County State's Attorney
to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of petitioners.
 
ANALYSIS
All statutes are presumed to be constitutional. Arangold
Corp. v. Zehnder, 187 Ill. 2d 341, 351 (1999). The party challenging the
constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of rebutting this presumption
and clearly establishing a constitutional violation. Arangold, 187 Ill. 2d  at 351. As the issue is one of law, we review de novo any
decision finding a statute unconstitutional. People v. Jung, 192 Ill. 2d 1 (2000); People ex rel. Lumpkin v. Cassidy, 184 Ill. 2d 117 (1998). It
is our duty to construe acts of the legislature so as to affirm their
constitutionality and validity if we can reasonably do so. R.W. Dunteman Co.
v. C/G Enterprises, Inc., 181 Ill. 2d 153, 163 (1998).
In this case the circuit court declared that section 1(D)(p)
was unconstitutional on its face. It is well settled that a facial challenge
"must overcome considerable hurdles:
A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of
      course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the
      challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which
      the Act would be valid. The fact that the [statute] might operate
      unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is
      insufficient to render it wholly invalid, since we have not recognized an
      "overbreadth" doctrine outside the limited context of the First
      Amendment.' " In re C.E., 161 Ill. 2d 200, 210-11
      (1994), quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697, 707, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 2100 (1987).
Initially, we note that our appellate court has consistently
upheld section 1(D)(p) against these constitutional challenges. See In re
B.S., No. 1983855 (November 8, 2000), slip op. at 21-24 (statute not
vague or in violation of equal protection or due process); In re J.S.,
213 Ill. App. 3d 126 (1991) (statute not vague); In re I.D., 205 Ill.
App. 3d 543, 548-50 (1990) (upholding statute against general due process and
equal protection challenges). No panel of the appellate court has ruled to the
contrary. The circuit court noted J.S. and I.D. in its memorandum
order but refused to follow this authority. As we have repeatedly held, this is
error. "It is the absolute duty of the circuit court to follow the
decisions of the appellate court." In re A.A., 181 Ill. 2d 32, 36
(1998); see also People v. Harris, 123 Ill. 2d 113, 128 (1988) ("[i]t
is fundamental in Illinois that the decisions of an appellate court are binding
precedent on all circuit courts regardless of locale"). If a circuit court
"entertains genuine doubt about the continued vitality of a reviewing court
decision," the proper manner in which to proceed in a complex or protracted
case is to rule in accordance with existing law and to enter a Rule 304(a) (155
Ill. 2d R. 304(a)) finding or certify the question for interlocutory appeal
under Rule 308 (134 Ill. 2d R. 308). Because of our system of precedent the
circuit court is not, however, free to disregard binding authority. State
Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Yapejian, 152 Ill. 2d 533, 539-40 (1992).
However, we note that the decisions in B.S. and I.D.
were based on the premise that the appropriate standard of scrutiny for
evaluating due process and equal protection challenges to section 1(D)(p) was
the "rational basis" test. B.S., slip op. at 22; I.D.,
205 Ill. App. 3d at 549. The decision in J.S. merely quoted the analysis
of the I.D. court. See J.S., 213 Ill. App. 3d at 131. As we shall
later discuss, the fundamental nature of the rights inherent in the parent-child
relationship compel the conclusion that the statute must instead withstand
strict constitutional scrutiny. This matter is deserving of clarification, and
accordingly we shall review the circuit court's decision, addressing in turn
each of the constitutional infirmities D.C. raises.
 
I. Due Process
A. Vagueness
First, D.C. contends that section 1(D)(p) is
unconstitutionally vague in that it fails to define the term "parental
responsibilities." A vagueness challenge is actually a contention that the
statute violates the due process clause, because due process requires that a
statute " give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable
opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.' "
Russell v. Department of Natural Resources, 183 Ill. 2d 434, 442 (1998),
quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 33 L. Ed. 2d 222,
227, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2298-99 (1972). A legislative act which is so vague,
indefinite and uncertain that the courts are unable, by accepted rules of
construction, to determine with any reasonable degree of certainty what the
legislature intended will be declared to be void. R.W. Dunteman, 181 Ill. 2d  at 163. However, an act is not unconstitutionally vague merely because one
can conjure up a hypothetical which brings the meaning of some terms into
question. Gem Electronics of Monmouth, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 183 Ill. 2d 470, 481 (1998). When considering a vagueness challenge to a statute, a
court considers not only the language used, but also the legislative objective
and the evil the statute is designed to remedy. R.W. Dunteman, 181 Ill. 2d  at 163.
It is an established rule that "  "[v]agueness
challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be
examined in the light of the facts of the case at hand." ' "
Russell, 183 Ill. 2d  at 442, quoting Village of Hoffman Estates v.
Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 495 n.7, 71 L. Ed. 2d 362,
369 n.7, 102 S. Ct. 1186, 1191 n.7 (1982), quoting United States v. Mazurie,
419 U.S. 544, 550, 42 L. Ed. 2d 706, 713, 95 S. Ct. 710, 714 (1975). The first
amendment is not implicated in this case. Thus, D.C. cannot contend that section
1(D)(p) is vague on its face if it clearly applies to her. Russell, 183 Ill. 2d  at 442; see People v. Jihan, 127 Ill. 2d 379, 386 (1989). The
question is thus whether D.C. clearly falls within the scope of the statute.
One might wonder how we will determine whether the statute is
unconstitutionally vague as applied to D.C., when there has been no fact-finding
in the case. The question answers itselfwe cannot. Nor could the circuit
court have done so. Thus it was inappropriate for the circuit court to declare
the statute vague. As this was a civil case, not involving the first amendment,
the vagueness challenge could not properly have been resolved except by
application to the facts of the case. The circuit court's determination that
the statute was unconstitutionally vague was premature and must be reversed.
" Although it is possible that specific future applications ... may
engender concrete problems of constitutional dimension, it will be time enough
to consider any such problems when they arise.' " Flipside,
455 U.S.  at 504, 71 L. Ed. 2d  at 375, 102 S. Ct.  at 1196, quoting Joseph E.
Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter, 384 U.S. 35, 52, 16 L. Ed. 2d 336,
348, 86 S. Ct. 1254, 1265 (1966). Moreover, even were we willing
to engage in an as-applied analysis assuming the truth of the psychiatric labels
applied to D.C. in the record, there are differing diagnoses. For example, the
record contains two reports by Dr. Archibald Hutchinson, one a "discharge
summary" with an apparent date of January 1995 and the next a "history
and physical" dated February 1995. The first refers to D.C. as a
"known case of chronic schizophrenia, chronic undifferentiated type,"
while the second document labels her a "well-known case of bipolar
disorder." Moreover, so far as we are aware, the record contains no
psychiatric analysis of what effect D.C.'s condition might have on her ability
to parent. There are not sufficient facts in the record to determine whether
D.C. "clearly" falls within the statute (see Russell, 183 Ill.
2d at 442), and accordingly we express no opinion on this question.
 
 
B. Procedural Due ProcessBurden of Proof
D.C. raises additional due process challenges to section
1(D)(p). She contends that, as the circuit court held, the statute violates
procedural due process because it alters the burden of proof for termination of
parental rights to something less than "clear and convincing
evidence." On this issue D.C. finds fault with the statutory language which
requires "competent evidence" of mental disability and
"sufficient justification" to believe that the disability will extend
beyond a reasonable time period.
The parties agree that a decision to terminate parental
rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See Santosky v.
Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 102 S. Ct. 1388 (1982); In re
Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d 255, 275 (1990) ("because of the
devastating effect produced by a termination of parental rights, the evidence of
a parent's unfitness has to be clear and convincing"). However, nothing
in section 1(D)(p) purports to alter this requirement. Section 1 of the Adoption
Act is merely a definitional section. Section 1(D) defines an "unfit
person" and enumerates, in its various subsections, the possible grounds of
unfitness. None of the various subsections of section 1(D) dictate the burden of
proving unfitness. Rather, the burden of proof in adoption proceedings is set
forth in section 8 of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/8 (West 1998)). That section
clearly states that to obviate the requirement of a consent or surrender to
adoption, on the grounds that the person is unfit as defined in section 1 of the
Adoption Act, the person must be proven to be unfit "by clear and
convincing evidence." 750 ILCS 50/8(a)(1) (West 1998). We see no evidence
of legislative intent that this requirement not apply to the particular
definition of unfitness set out in section 1(D)(p). The requirement that the
evidence of mental unfitness be "competent" refers to the type
of evidence, not the quantum, nor does the word "sufficient" connote
any particular burden of proof. Accordingly, we reject D.C.'s procedural due
process challenge.
 
C. Substantive Due Process
D.C. also asserts that section 1(D)(p) violates substantive
due process, because it allows a parent to be declared unfit without any showing
that the parent has neglected or harmed his or her child or that harm is
imminent; and because it does not require the court to consider "lesser
alternatives to terminating parental rights." We find no merit to either
contention.
Before addressing the specifics of either challenge, we must
determine the type of review in which we are to engage. The analysis courts use
when confronted with a claim that a statute violates the due process guarantees
of the United States and Illinois Constitutions depends on the nature of the
right upon which the statute supposedly infringes. Ordinarily, courts will
employ a relaxed scrutiny of statutes, looking only to see whether the statute
bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. Tully v. Edgar,
171 Ill. 2d 297, 304 (1996). However, in cases where the right infringed upon is
among those considered a "fundamental" constitutional right, courts
subject the statute to "strict" scrutiny. To survive strict scrutiny
the means employed by the legislature must be "necessary" to a
"compelling" state interest, and the statute must be narrowly tailored
thereto, i.e., the legislature must use the least restrictive means
consistent with the attainment of its goal. Tully, 171 Ill. 2d  at 304-05.
Thus, in order to analyze D.C.'s due process challenge, we
must first determine whether section 1(D)(p) impinges on a fundamental
constitutional right. The United States Supreme Court has recently addressed
this issue, in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. ___, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49, 120 S. Ct. 2054 (2000). There, the Court reiterated that a parent's right to
control the upbringing of his or her children is a fundamental constitutional
right. See Troxel, 530 U.S. at ___, 147 L. Ed. 2d  at 56, 120 S. Ct.  at
2060 (plurality opinion) ("the interest of parents in the care, custody,
and control of their childrenis perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty
interests recognized by this Court"); 530 U.S. at ___, 147 L. Ed. 2d  at 63,
120 S. Ct.  at 2066 (Souter, J., concurring) ("a parent's interests in the
nurture, upbringing, companionship, care, and custody of children are generally
protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"); 530 U.S.
at ___, 147 L. Ed. 2d  at 65, 120 S. Ct.  at 2068 (Thomas, J., concurring)
(recognizing that the Court's prior case law establishes that "parents
have a fundamental constitutional right to rear their children"); 530 U.S.
at ___, 147 L. Ed. 2d  at 69, 120 S. Ct.  at 2071 (Stevens, J., dissenting)
("[o]ur cases leave no doubt that parents have a fundamental liberty
interest in caring for and guiding their children"); 530 U.S. at ___, 147 L. Ed. 2d  at 74, 120 S. Ct.  at 2076 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) ("there is a
beginning point that commands general, perhaps unanimous, agreement in our
separate opinions: As our case law has developed, the custodial parent has a
constitutional right to determine, without undue interference by the state, how
best to raise, nurture, and educate the child[, which] stems from the liberty
protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment").
Accordingly, we must employ strict scrutiny, and determine whether section
1(D)(p) is necessary to a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored
thereto. To the extent that the appellate court decisions in B.S., I.D.,
and J.S. hold or suggest that the statute must merely survive rational
relation scrutiny, they are overruled.
 
1. Finding of Harm
We first consider D.C.'s argument that the statute is
constitutionally infirm for allowing a parent to be declared unfit without
proving that the parent has, or is about to, neglect or harm the child. We have
upheld article III of the Juvenile Court Act, the minors requiring authoritative
intervention (MRAI) statute (705 ILCS 405/31 et seq. (West
1998)), against an identical argument. In People v. R.G.,131 Ill. 2d 328
(1989), we reviewed a ruling by the circuit court that a portion of the MRAI
statute was unconstitutional. The provision in question concerned what should be
done with a child who had run away from home and been taken into limited custody
by the state for interim crisis intervention services. The statute required the
state, for a limited time, to keep the child in custody and refuse any demands
by parents to return the child to them if the child refused to return home. See
705 ILCS 405/33 (West 1998). The circuit court held that the state's
general interest in the welfare of minors was not sufficiently compelling to
satisfy strict scrutiny, because some runaways, specifically those who went to
the "safe and secure family home" of a friend or relative, would not
be in danger of harm. The circuit court concluded that the state could not
assert a compelling interest sufficient to satisfy the MRAI statute without
conducting an individualized assessment of risk for each minor sought to be
protected under the MRAI statute.
We rejected the circuit court's reasoning, holding that a
child's safety and welfare were always jeopardized by running away from home.
We noted that "[e]ven if the minor finds refuge with a relative or friend,
the minor's welfare could still be in jeopardy because the minor may not be
receiving proper care there." R.G., 131 Ill. 2d  at 346. Thus, no
individualized assessment of risk was required.
Our analysis in R.G. supports a similar conclusion in
this case. Section 1(D)(p) does not, of course, allow a finding of unfitness
based on a mere showing of mental impairment, illness, or retardation. Rather,
the person's mental condition must render him unable to discharge his parental
responsibilities and the inability to discharge parental responsibilities must
"extend beyond a reasonable time period." 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(p) (West
1994). By definition, a child who is being raised by a person who is unable to
discharge his parental responsibilities might not "receiv[e] proper
care." It was precisely this possibility which was found sufficiently
compelling to uphold the MRAI statute in R.G. See R.G., 131 Ill. 2d  at 346. The parties in this case do not dispute that the state, as parens
patriae, has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of children
in general, nor would we accept such an argument. See R.G.,131 Ill. 2d  at
344, citing Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 638-41, 20 L. Ed. 2d 195,
203-04, 88 S. Ct. 1274, 1279-81 (1968); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 652, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551, 559, 92 S. Ct. 1208, 1213 (1972); Santosky v.
Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 766, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 615, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1401
(1982); Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 603, 61 L. Ed. 2d 101, 119, 99 S. Ct. 2493, 2504-05 (1979); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 88 L. Ed. 645, 652-53, 64 S. Ct. 438, 442 (1944). We find that the state's
interest in protecting minors is sufficiently compelling to satisfy strict due
process scrutiny when a child is being raised by a parent who is, and will
remain, for an unreasonable time, mentally unable to give the child proper care.
 
2. Less Restrictive Alternatives and Related Arguments
D.C. also contends that section 1(D)(p) violates due process
because it does not require the court to consider less restrictive alternatives
to termination of parental rights. In two related arguments, D.C. contends that
the statute is infirm because it does not require proof that the inability to
discharge parental responsibilities be related to the parent's mental
condition or proof that the mental condition cannot be treated. We reject this
group of arguments as well.
First, we find no merit to the contention that the statute
violates due process because it does not require that the inability to discharge
parental responsibilities be related to the mental condition. The statute
requires proof of inability to discharge parental responsibilities
"supported by" competent evidence of the mental condition. 750 ILCS
50/1(D)(p) (West 1998). It is clear from the statutory language that the mental
condition must be the cause of the inability to discharge parental
responsibilities which forms the basis for the finding of unfitness. We see no
basis for confusion on the face of the statute and D.C. brings to our attention
no authority indicating that there has been the slightest uncertainty on this
point.
Nor does the statute require the court to ignore evidence
that the mental condition may be treated. Clearly, the likelihood of successful
treatment of the mental condition should inform the determination of whether the
inability to discharge parental responsibilities will continue "beyond a
reasonable time." Again, we are unaware of any confusion on this point
after a review of the authority interpreting the statute. D.C. has not brought
to our attention any court having refused to consider evidence of treatment
options. However, the existence of a treatment for the mental condition will not
uniformly preclude a finding of unfitness under section 1(D)(p). It may be, for
example, that although a treatment exists, the likelihood of the patient
successfully undergoing the treatment are extremely dim; or the treatment might
take such a long time that the trial court could justifiably find that the
inability to discharge responsibilities would continue beyond a reasonable time
notwithstanding the treatment. See In re R.M., 219 Ill. App. 3d 747, 751
(1991) (upholding trial court's finding of unfitness despite testimony that
condition might be treatable, where treatment would last four to seven "or
more" years and prognosis was "not good"). Clearly this is not an
exhaustive list of the factors which might influence the trial court's
determination. We merely wish to indicate that although section 1(D)(p) does not
explicitly mention treatment, the possibility of treatment can and should be
taken into account under the statute as written, although it might not by itself
be determinative of the outcome in all cases.
The same is true of evidence that, notwithstanding the
persistence of the parent's mental condition, the parent might become able to
discharge his parental responsibilities with proper training or other services.
The future focus of the statute is not the persistence of the parent's mental
condition, but his inability to discharge his parental responsibilities. Thus
evidence demonstrating that the parent could become able to discharge his
responsibilities should be considered, even in the absence of evidence that the
germinal mental condition could itself be cured or eradicated.
We reject D.C.'s larger "less restrictive
alternatives" argument as well. The legislature has provided that the
Adoption Act and the Juvenile Court Act are to be construed in concert with each
other. 750 ILCS 50/2.1 (West 1998). Section 20a of the Adoption Act provides
that in construction and interpretation of that act the "best interests and
welfare of the person to be adopted shall be of paramount consideration."
750 ILCS 50/20a (West 1998). The Juvenile Court Act is more specific in this
regard; the purpose of that enactment is to
"secure for each minor subject hereto such care and
    guidance, preferably in his or her own home, as will serve the safety and
    moral, emotional, mental, and physical welfare of the minor and the best
    interests of the community; to preserve and strengthen the minor's family
    ties whenever possible, removing him or her from the custody of his or her
    parents only when his or her safety or welfare or the protection of the
    public cannot be adequately safeguarded without removal ***." 705 ILCS
    405/12(1) (West 1998).
It is apparent that the preferred result under the Juvenile
Court Act is that a child remain in his or her home, in the custody of his or
her parents. This is a clarification of the child's best interests. As the
Adoption Act and the Juvenile Court Act are to be construed in concert with each
other, it is apparent that termination of parental rights should not be the
default option in proceedings under the Adoption Act in which a parent contests
an allegation of unfitness. We believe the courts of Illinois are already
sensitive to this concern. See, e.g., In re A.J., 269 Ill. App. 3d
824, 828 (1994) ("[c]ourts do not, and indeed should not, lightly terminate
parental rights or summarily dismiss a mentally ill person's rights").
Nevertheless, once a court has found by clear and convincing evidence that a
parent is unfit, the state's interest in protecting the child is sufficiently
compelling to allow the termination of parental rights.
 
II. Equal Protection
D.C.'s final argument is that section 1(D)(p) violates the
constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law in two respects.
First, she contends that the statute impermissibly distinguishes between parents
who are unable to discharge parental responsibilities because of mental
conditions and parents who are unable to discharge their responsibilities for
other reasons. Second, she contends that the legislature has violated equal
protection by failing to provide parents whose rights are sought to be
terminated under the Adoption Act with the benefits afforded to
"identically situated" parents under the Juvenile Court Act.
The protection provided by the equal protection clauses of
the United States and the Illinois Constitutions is identical. A.A., 181 Ill. 2d  at 36-37. The guarantee of equal protection requires that the government
treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. Thus, the government
may not accord different treatment to persons who have been placed by statute
into different classes on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the purpose
of legislation. However, the equal protection clause does not forbid the
legislature from drawing proper distinctions in legislation among different
categories of people. The level of scrutiny applied in reviewing legislative
classifications under the equal protection guarantee depends on the nature of
the classification; for purposes of this case it suffices to note that courts
apply strict scrutiny to classifications affecting fundamental rights. A.A.,
181 Ill. 2d  at 37. To survive strict scrutiny in the equal protection context,
as in due process analysis, the means employed by the legislature must be
necessary to advance a compelling state interest, and the statute must be
narrowly tailored to the attainment of the legislative goal. In re Estate of
Hicks, 174 Ill. 2d 433, 438 (1996). An equal protection violation is
remediable by equal treatment, which may be accomplished by extension of
benefits to the excluded class or withdrawal of benefits from the favored class.
Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728, 79 L. Ed. 2d 646, 104 S. Ct. 1387
(1984).
The first equal protection challenge raised by D.C. is that
section 1(D)(p) impermissibly distinguishes between parents who are unable to
discharge parental responsibilities because of mental conditions and parents who
are unable to discharge their responsibilities for other reasons. D.C. contends
that only parents with a mental impairment may have their rights terminated
based on their inability to discharge parental responsibilities, whereas parents
without a mental impairment cannot have their parental rights terminated because
of their inability to discharge their parental responsibility. D.C. contends
that persons who are unable to discharge their parental responsibilities form an
identically situated group and that there is no sound basis for dividing this
group based on the "status" of having a mental impairment.
D.C. bases this argument on the premise that section 1(D)(p)
does not require that the mental impairment cause the inability to discharge
parental responsibilities. As we have previously discussed, however, the statute
does require a causational link. Accordingly, the statute does not treat
identically situated persons differently. One set of persons who may be found
unfit are persons who, because of a mental condition, are unable to discharge
parental responsibilities and will remain unable to do so for more than a
reasonable time. This group is not similarly situated to persons who are not
mentally unable to discharge their parental responsibilities. We find no
fault with the legislative determination that persons who are and will remain
mentally unable to discharge parental responsibilities may be declared unfit.
D.C.'s other equal protection challenge is that parents
facing the loss of their parental rights are treated differently depending on
whether their fitness is challenged under the Juvenile Court Act or the Adoption
Act. D.C. contends that the statutory scheme cannot survive strict scrutiny
because identically situated parents are entitled to services from the state in
Juvenile Court Act proceedings but not in Adoption Act proceedings.
Specifically, D.C. notes that section 210 of the Juvenile Court Act requires
the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to make "reasonable
efforts" to eliminate the necessity of removing a minor from the parents'
home, efforts which are to include the "provision of services" to the
minor or his family to ameliorate the situation requiring the minor's removal.
See 705 ILCS 405/210 (West 1998). D.C. contends that parents whose parental
rights are questioned in an Adoption Act proceeding are entitled to no such
benefits, and accordingly they are treated differently despite being identically
situated.
D.C. has not carried her burden (see Arangold, 187
Ill. 2d at 351) of clearly establishing a constitutional violation. As
previously noted, the guarantee of equal protection only requires that the
legislature treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. A.A.,
181 Ill. 2d  at 37. An examination of the statutory provision upon which D.C.
relies reveals that D.C. is not similarly situated to persons receiving the
services which that statute provides. Section 210 of the Juvenile Court Act
governs temporary shelter care hearings, not hearings regarding
termination of parental rights. The state services mandated therein are provided
in the context of the state removing a minor from his or her home based merely
on a finding of probable cause to believe that the minor is abused, neglected or
dependent. 705 ILCS 405/210(2) (West 1998). Such a procedure is not even
contemplated under the Adoption Act. Accordingly, section 210 cannot be said
to grant services which similarly situated persons would not receive under the
Adoption Act, because no persons will be similarly situated under the Adoption
Act. In the instant case the State did not take R.C. from D.C.'s custody
against her will; D.C. voluntarily surrendered temporary custody of her child
to Lutheran for adoption placement purposes. The situation in this case is not
analogous to the state placing a child in shelter care, and D.C. lacks standing
to raise an equal protection argument based on facts other than those present in
her case. Bruso v. Alexian Brothers Hospital, 178 Ill. 2d 445, 460 (1997)
(to have standing to raise an equal protection claim, the party must be a member
of the class against whom the statute allegedly discriminates); People v.
Jaudon, 307 Ill. App. 3d 427, 435-36 (1999) (a party has no standing to
assert the constitutional rights of others not before the court).
 
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above stated, the order of the circuit court
declaring section 1(D)(p) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(p) (West 1998))
unconstitutional is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the circuit court
for further proceedings.
 
Reversed and remanded.
 
JUSTICE GARMAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.