good morning chief justice members of the court may have please the court my name is assistant state's attorney tasha ray kelly from the cook county state's attorney's office on behalf of the people of the state of illinois in this case the appellate court holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over minor respondents father was wrong my nose by intent was a company to her first appearance in juvenile court by her non custodial father on that court date both minor respond and her father were informed that a petition for adjudication of ward ship had been filed and were properly served with copies they were apprised of the facts and circumstances surrounding the charge of bribery in the petition through a detailed proffer by the assistant state's attorney and they were informed of the next court date this appearance by minor respondents father constituted a submission to the trial court's jurisdiction and properly as stablished personal jurisdiction over him the juvenile court act is clear specifically in section five slash five to five that once personal jurisdiction is established over a party that that party waives any further formal service at that point it becomes the responsibility of that party to continue coming to court and being an active and informed participant in the proceedings in this case the proceedings continued and the minor respondent along with her custodial parent her mother continued to come to court her father made the decision not to continue attending the proceedings and as such he was not present when the people amended the delinquency petition to add a lesser charge of aggravated battery which was based on the same facts and circumstances as the already existing robbery charge there was no objection offered either to the amendment or to proceeding forward without minor respondents father and minor respondent was due to katie delinquent on both counts in the petition on appeal the appellate court reversed the minors adjudication of delinquency finding that the failure to provide notice to minor respondents father of the amendment to the petition constituted a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and rendered the order voided it under section five thirty isn't the father titled it's the people's position that section five five thirty wouldn't apply in this case for several reasons first of all five five twenty five references five thirty and explains when subsection five five thirty is to be used and it specifically states that five five thirty is to be used in the subsequent proceeding in this case it was not a subsequent proceeding but rather a continuation of the original delinquency proceeding and the adjudication was on the original count of robbery as well as the amended count in the petition so i thought you were well as personal jurisdiction over the parties subject matter jurisdiction in the juvenile case is established by article six of the constitution and the only question is whether there is the judicial just a simple matter before the court and since there was a valid delinquency petition filed against minor respondent the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction it's also the people's position that the trial court had personal jurisdiction over the parties including min however as i stated since this was about a subsequent proceeding it would not apply there was also additional problems with the application of five five thirty in this instance for instance that  are clear that you cannot enlarge the plain meaning of the statute in this case it's clear that five five thirty is meant to apply only to supplemental and amended petitions however in this appellate court used five i thirty to divest the the personal jurisdiction which had been established over minor respondents father based on section five five twenty five and thereby  enlarged the meaning of by five thirty the other problem with the use of by by thirty in this case is there's nothing in the language of five thirty which suggests that it was meant to affect jurisdiction if you look at for instance section five twenty five which talks about formal service there are provisions built into the actual statute that talk about jurisdictional issues and it makes it clear that the proceeding cannot go forward in til service is achieved and jurisdictions established over the parties there's no such language in five five thirty which suggests that the proceedings cannot go forward if notice is not achieved and there's nothing to suggest that it was meant additional issue which is raised by an interpretation of five five thirty which would call for sanctions or some sort of penalty to be given if it's not complied with is that the a literal reading of five by five thirty like that would call for resurface in so many instances that it would back all of the juvenile court the language of five thirty refer refers not only to supplemental and amended petitions but also motion so for instance if a party made a motion for a continuance a motion to suppress statements a motion to even just amend something simple like an address in the petition resurface would have to be achieved and it in juvenile court now if service is not achieved on say there's no requirement that the proceedings cannot go forward if service is not achieved on a motion or if all parties are not served with a copy of a motion or if all parties are not present when an and or a motion for say a continuance is made by a party so is it your position that if you i was going to speak to the issue of the miners forfeiture in this case which is that if minor had requested that notice be achieved prior to proceeding with the amended petition then certainly the people would have gotten it can continue once and served her father however there was no objection in this case and so minor has forfeited her right to object to the lack of noticed in this case the law is clear that where a minor respondent does not object to a lack of notice to a non custodial parent at the trial court level that minor forfeits her right to object to the lack of notice that the appellate level or number of and i would like to focus my time during oral argument on the issue addressed by my count so of course i would take any as questions on the cost of you know issues as well the crucial aspect of the notice requirements of the act and that are not acknowledged by the state that parents are parties to this proceeding and parents are parties to adjudicatory hearings for a reason there's a critical role that custody that's defined in the with their father we could take that to mean that she lives with her father during the weekend so there's not necessarily exclusive physical custody but in all respects the record clearly establishes that their joint legal custody in this case m w has a clear relationship with her with her father she looks to him for guidance she looks for it she trusts both of them and she accepts both of them as their dual point and in their lives they both have decision making power and that's what joint custody is medical expenses legal custody is is determined by the relationship between the parties i think legal custody is the term and how they relate to one another well first of all the parents were never married and in this case so we don't have any sort of divorce proceedings and certainly nothing's on the record about that but for any suggestion that because she'll live with her mother primarily the father has absolutely no say in decision making this decisions that any father who doesn't have is a capacity would  as medical decisions financial decisions you know military decisions i mean the there's a world there's families are or certainly in this day and age there's a lot of fathers who don't have he received notice of egypt at torrey hearing i'm that was scheduled to be to be run on the robbery charge only that he did receive notice of that there was sufficient notice on their case due process rights violated well let's talk about exactly what happened here there was a there was a charge and robbery in this case her the reason the parents are important reason is the due process right is because kids cannot make the judgment on this important decisions on their own now what happened exactly they added a new charge i can't speculate exactly why they had their charge but i have a theory that perhaps they wanted it that they were interested in  pursuing a pleat maybe there was a plea offer that they would drop the robbery charge made these are exactly the type of decisions that while minor needs the guidance of her parents who himself by the way as the due process wri we're talking about this point constitutes for lack of a better word perhaps armless error or are minimus error but absolutely there's no question that section five s five thirty eight requires notice when there is a supplemental or any subsequent proceedings in that prosecution shall be dated in accordance with the prison visions of section five dish thirty and so it seems to me that that clearly says that five thirty only applies once the court  already acquired jurisdiction over a part so i want to know why this is not an oversimplification and maybe that will be the basis of a question there is no dispute is there that their subject matter jurisdiction is we're not necessarily  ting we're the only questioning whether or not the chair stiction all rights and and i think in answer to either justice garment or justice first question it doesn't appear that there's any dispute that once he was served with the original petition and appeared in open court personal jurisdiction was established over m w spot right under section subsection for a device or so isn't the question for this court jurisdiction of all of their voidable there has to be an objection or that objections weighed in this case there was no object my argument right response to that respectfully if that's putting the cart before the horse he she needs the minors purpose the  purpose of having her father there apparently there is such that she can help them exercise their rights so if she's not if he doesn't have self have notice of the percy things in order to exercise his rights how can the burden be on the minor to do so with respect or with respect to her father and that has an intellectual view but to make that argument some are going to have to at least convince me that somehow the orders  reasoning at all in that regard one section subsection three talks about shall be made in accordance with section five best five thirty and section five best by thirty eight speaks precisely to a man that is supplemental petitions that's exactly what they were talking about has to comply from gault to r s to c h to due process requirements statutorily it has to be the same as an it from the criminal proceeding certainly there wouldn't be adequate notice in a criminal proceeding but with out the all parties the party knowing what they have to defend against and they did not know that they had it the father did not ever know that he had to counsel his daughter her status in the fans how her make decisions and aggravated battery there was never any notice for that and that could have changed any sort of counsel that he would have given his daughter and again i give you the you know what i feel deal with all of you over five twenty five read this is once service on the father isn't the right that remedy is wasn't that remedy available to the minors again i get it if i understand your question she can't that's the point is that the father house or circle right so understand it and she could have as she could have asserted that if you took a tour here and my father's not here i thought he'd be here but her father it's putting the cart before the horse because it's her father who can help assert her rights that's why the parents are there in the first place and again the father has his own due process right as well to be there which certainly i don't believe a different party could wait for the child did get when she was represented by counsel so the counsel could have objected form or if she didn't know min was represented by counsel but again i turn back to that there's a reason that parents are parties to these proceedings there's a reason that counsels not enough there's a special relationship between the minor it's harder to communicate between counsel and minor where you may need a parent intermediary again we don't know whether the minors mother even wanting her father there so it's his own right and she and it that she can't express on his behalf the parents role is to help the minor take some responsibility for her actions maybe he didn't think she should take responsibility for robbery for precisely some of the reasons that are an issue too or because he didn't know about the doctrine of accountability that maybe he would have thought that she should have taken responsibility for the aggravated battery and again we're speculating because the state's in compliance i understand my time hearing her she not only had counsel with her she had her custodial parent with her her mother was present her mother was available to fill the role that counsel was just arriving at the father could have failed to advise the minor  to offer her support and advice as to which way to proceed and the minor respondent father made the decision not to be present for the adjudicatory hearing after he was provided notice of the hearing because of that and because of the fact that minor respondent did not make an objection to proceeding forward without her father she has waived her right to contest thing we would ask the court to clarify the distinction between subject matter and personal jurisdiction in this case the finding of the appellate court was that there was a lack of subject matter jurisdiction even minor respondent now concedes that there was subject matter jurisdiction and the issue which should have been addressed was whether there was personal jurisdiction thank you counsel you made a comment that he was given notice as well make sure twenty fifth the record doesn't specifically reflect that anything was mailed to the father however since the miner responded and states that she has regular contact with her father but it's not my he wasn't even given notice of those other day your honor it the record doesn't explicitly reflect that he was given any further notice of the proceedings other than the formal service that achieved in court on the april court date so between april and july he had no no communication is that what was going on was putting aside whether he was required to be sure there's no indication from the record now was he given a date when would when he appeared in court was their parents state said at that time for the jury hearing yes there was there was a next court date given and that was given in open court yes i was counseled it's the custom and practice a juvenile court is it not not to send