NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except 

in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

2023 IL App (3d) 220033-U

Order filed June 29, 2023 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2023 

In re A.H., )

 ) 

a Minor ) 

 ) 

(The People of the State of Illinois, ) 

 ) 

Petitioner-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

H.P.V., ) 

 ) 

Respondent-Appellant). )

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 12th Judicial Circuit, 

Will County, Illinois. 

Appeal No. 3-22-0033 

Circuit No. 21-JA-221 

The Honorable 

Paula A. Gomora, 

Judge, Presiding.

____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE McDADE delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Brennan and Hettel concurred in the judgment. 

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court did not err when it denied the respondent-mother’s 

petition to expunge. 

¶ 2 After a juvenile petition regarding the minor, A.H., was withdrawn and the case 

dismissed, the respondent-mother, H.P.V., filed a pro se petition to expunge the juvenile case 

record. The circuit court dismissed the mother’s petition, and she appealed. On appeal, the 
2 

mother argues (1) the circuit court erred when it dismissed her petition to expunge, and (2) her 

rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), were violated. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On August 3, 2021, the State filed a juvenile petition alleging that the minor was 

neglected due to an injurious environment. Specifically, the petition alleged that (1) a “[d]octor 

indicated it was unsafe for the minor to go home with mother do [sic] to her exhibiting bizarre 

and delusional and manic behaviors,” and (2) “[m]other was psychiatrically hospitalized.” The 

following day the minor was ordered to be taken from the mother, who was an adult throughout 

this case, and placed in shelter care. On August 12, that order was vacated and the minor was 

returned to the mother’s care, albeit with certain restrictions.

¶ 5 On August 26, less than a month from its filing, the State withdrew its petition. The 

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) was discharged, and the civil, neglectbased juvenile case was closed. 

¶ 6 On December 8, the mother filed a petition to expunge the juvenile case record pursuant 

to section 5.2 of the Criminal Identification Act (20 ILCS 2630/5.2 (West 2020)), listing DCFS 

as the “arresting agency”. A written order dated January 27, 2022, denied the mother’s petition 

without explanation. No report of proceedings, which might have disclosed the trial judge’s 

reasoning, is present in the appeal record.1

 The mother appealed. 

¶ 7 II. ANALYSIS

1

 The mother filed various motions with this court, alleging that her attempts at having 

the report of proceedings prepared were unsuccessful, at least in part because the circuit court 

judge would not “release” the transcripts. We denied all of her motions, which included requests 

for this court to compel Judge Gomora to release the transcripts or the State to obtain them. 
3 

¶ 8 On appeal, the mother argues that (1) the circuit court erred when it denied her petition 

to expunge, and (2) her Miranda rights were violated. Among other things, she claims that (1) 

she was improperly admitted involuntarily to a psychiatric ward based on hearsay; (2) she has 

never had psychiatric issues; (3) she was never read her Miranda rights; and (4) she was refused 

access to an attorney.

¶ 9 Section 5.2 of the Criminal Identification Act (20 ILCS 2630/5.2 (West 2020)) permits an 

individual to petition the circuit court for the sealing and expungement of records in criminal 

cases under certain circumstances. Id. Of particular relevance to this case, section 5.2(b)(1) 

provides that an individual can seek expungement of “the records of his or her arrests and 

charges not initiated by arrest when each arrest or charge not initiated by arrest sought to be 

expunged resulted in *** acquittal, dismissal, or the petitioner’s release without charging ***.” 

Id. § 5.2(b)(1). We review a circuit court’s denial of a petition to expunge for an abuse of 

discretion. People v. Laguna, 2014 IL App (2d) 131145, ¶ 14. 

¶ 10 Regarding expungement, we first note that section 5.2 does not authorize the 

expungement of civil, neglect-based cases brought under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. 20 

ILCS 2630/5.2 (West 2020). In fact, the only reference section 5.2 contains to any type of 

juvenile records is that expungement may be sought regarding “records maintained by the 

Illinois State Police for persons arrested prior to their 17th birthday,” but that it must be done 

under section 5-915 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. Id. § 5.2(b)(3). As we have previously 

noted, the mother was an adult at the time of the minor’s birth. 

¶ 11 We further note that the mother claims that the “[c]harges meet definition of ‘Neglect and 

Endangerment Offense’ 720ILCS5/12c-5 [sic]” such that she is entitled to expungement. Even if 

section 5.2 provided for the expungement of civil, neglect-based cases brought under the 
4 

Juvenile Court Act of 1987, there is nothing in the record on appeal to indicate that the mother 

was either arrested on any criminal charges or was in fact criminally charged. For all of these 

reasons, the mother was not eligible for expungement of any kind under the Criminal 

Identification Act. See id. § 5.2. 

¶ 12 It is understandable that the mother would want any record of an assertedly unwarranted

juvenile neglect case expunged. The statute she has chosen for her pursuit, however, does not 

apply to her situation or to DCFS, and does not authorize the relief she seeks. There may be civil 

or administrative remedies available to her that are more appropriate to resolving her concern, 

however, there is nothing in the record to show that she has attempted to pursue any other 

procedure or that she would actually be successful if she did. 

¶ 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that the circuit court did not abuse its 

discretion when it denied the mother’s petition to expunge based on the Criminal Identification 

Act. 

¶ 14 Regarding the mother’s Miranda rights, we note that “[a] suspect’s entitlement to 

Miranda warnings is triggered when she is subjected to custodial interrogation.” People v. 

Carroll, 318 Ill. App. 3d 135, 138 (2001). “Custodial interrogation” means “questioning initiated 

by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of 

his freedom of action in any significant way.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. Again, there is nothing 

in the record on appeal to suggest that the mother was either arrested or otherwise taken into 

custodial interrogation as a suspect in a criminal investigation. Thus, no Miranda warnings were 

necessary. Accordingly, we reject the mother’s argument that her Miranda rights were violated. 

¶ 15 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 16 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed. 
5 

¶ 17 Affirmed.