Illinois Official Reports

Appellate Court

In re N.M., 2014 IL App (4th) 130604

Appellate Court 

Caption

In re: N.M., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

Petitioner-Appellee, v. LE’KIESHA McFADDEN and JIMALE 

WILLIAMS, Respondents, and BOBBIE GREGG, Acting Director of 

the Department of Children and Family Services, RespondentAppellant.–In re: S.B. and K.B., Minors, THE PEOPLE OF THE 

STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. RAMIE DAVIS and 

SHANE BURDETTE, Respondents, and BOBBIE GREGG, Acting 

Director of the Department of Children and Family Services, 

Respondent-Appellant.–In re: J.S., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE 

STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. HEATHER LONG 

and JEFFREY SMITH, Respondents, and BOBBIE GREGG, Acting 

Director of the Department of Children and Family Services, 

Respondent-Appellant.–In re: M.R. and K.A., Minors, THE PEOPLE 

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ALEXIS 

WINFREY and KEVIN AKINS, Respondents, and BOBBIE 

GREGG, Acting Director of the Department of Children and Family 

Services, Respondent-Appellant.–In re T.E., a Minor, THE PEOPLE 

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. KATHLEEN 

EBLE and JOSEPH STEERMAN, Respondents, and BOBBIE 

GREGG, Acting Director of the Department of Children and Family 

Services, Respondent-Appellant.

District & No. Fourth District

Docket Nos. 4-13-0604, 4-13-0607, 4-13-0608, 4-13-0609, 4-13-0611 

cons.

Rule 23 Order filed

Rule 23 Order 

withdrawn

Opinion filed

March 12, 2014

April 17, 2014

April 17, 2014
- 2 -

Held

(Note: This syllabus 

constitutes no part of the 

opinion of the court but 

has been prepared by the 

Reporter of Decisions 

for the convenience of 

the reader.)

In five consolidated appeals of juvenile cases in which the trial judge 

entered dispositional orders including a requirement that an employee 

of the Department of Children and Family Services attend all hearings, 

even though the cases had been assigned to private-agency 

caseworkers, the appellate court vacated the requirement that an 

employee of DCFS appear at all hearings, since the Juvenile Court Act 

provides that a private-agency caseworker assigned to a case may 

appear and testify at a juvenile court proceeding without the presence 

of a DCFS employee, subject to the limited statutory exception that 

the court may order a DCFS employee to appear if the court makes a 

finding that an appearance would be in the minor’s best interests and 

sets forth reasons for such an appearance in writing.

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign County, Nos. 12-JA-52, 

12-JA-47, 12-JA-51, 12-JA-54, No. 12-JA-53; the Hon. Richard P. 

Klaus, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

Counsel on

Appeal

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, 

Solicitor General, and Paul Racette, Assistant Attorney General, of 

counsel), for appellant.

Julia Reitz, State’s Attorney, of Urbana (Patrick Delfino and David J. 

Robinson, both of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of 

counsel), for the People.

Carrie L. Kmoch, of CASA of Champaign County, of Urbana, 

guardian ad litem.

Panel JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion.

Justices Turner and Harris concurred in the judgment and opinion.
- 3 -

OPINION

¶ 1 In these five consolidated appeals, respondent, Bobbie Gregg, as the Acting Director of the 

Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), challenges the portions of the 

juvenile court’s dispositional orders requiring DCFS employees to appear at all hearings even 

though DCFS had assigned private-agency caseworkers to the minors’ cases. (We note that, 

initially, Richard H. Calica was named as respondent; however, because Bobbie Gregg is now 

the Acting Director of DCFS, we have substituted her as the party on appeal.) The Director 

contends the juvenile court erred by ordering DCFS employees to appear at the hearings 

because (1) section 1-17 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Act) (705 ILCS 405/1-17 

(West 2012)) establishes a general rule that a private-agency caseworker assigned to a minor’s 

case may appear and testify at juvenile court proceedings without the presence of a DCFS 

employee, and (2) the limited statutory exception to the general rule in section 1-17 applies 

only where the circuit court makes an individualized factual finding after hearing evidence.

¶ 2 We affirm in part and vacate in part.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In February 2013, the juvenile court entered dispositional orders in Champaign County 

case Nos. 12-JA-52, 12-JA-47, 12-JA-51, 12-JA-54, and 12-JA-53. Relevant to this appeal, 

each order required that a DCFS employee be present at all hearings, despite private-agency 

caseworkers having been assigned to the minors’ cases. Each order contained the following 

language:

“Because DCFS as guardian is the only agency accountable to the Court for the full and 

complete implementation of this order and the only agency with full knowledge of the 

services available, DCFS is ordered to appear by one of its caseworkers at the next 

hearing and all subsequent hearings and may not delegate this responsibility to any 

other agency.”

¶ 5 Later that month, DCFS filed a verified motion in each case. (In case No. 12-JA-54, DCFS 

also filed a March 2013 corrected verified motion.) In the motions, DCFS noted that it had 

transferred primary case management responsibility in each case to a private agency. As a 

result of the transfer, DCFS noted, the private caseworkers were required to perform all case 

management functions and were best equipped to answer any specific factual questions 

regarding the cases. DCFS further explained that, prior to January 1, 2013, it employed “court 

monitors” tasked with appearing at all hearings in which the guardianship administrator had 

assigned responsibility for a minor to a private agency. As a result of budget cuts, however, 

DCFS eliminated the “court monitor” positions after January 1, 2013. According to DCFS, if a 

court forced DCFS to create or modify a position to encompass the prior court monitors’ 

duties, it would create a financial hardship for DCFS and create problems under DCFS’s 

collective-bargaining agreement.

¶ 6 DCFS also asserted that by requiring an employee to appear at all hearings, the juvenile 

court had, “in effect,” ordered DCFS to maintain a court monitor position, thereby infringing 

on the Director’s discretion to manage her agency. In addition, DCFS posited that under the 

plain language of section 1-17 of the Juvenile Act, the court could only order a DCFS 
- 4 -

employee to appear at a hearing in addition to a private-agency employee after the court first 

determined the minor’s best interest necessitated such an appearance and set forth its findings 

in writing. Further, DCFS claimed the legislature did not intend to give the court unfettered 

power to require an employee to appear at all hearings wherein primary responsibility had been 

transferred to a private agency; rather, the court could only order a DCFS employee to be 

present pursuant to section 1-17 of the Juvenile Act on a “case-by-case and hearing-by-hearing 

basis.” Finally, according to DCFS, the court could not realistically expect DCFS employees to 

know “every detail of every case for every hearing in Champaign County,” especially when a 

private agency had assumed primary case management responsibility, and in any event, DCFS 

remained fully accountable to the court even if an employee did not appear in court.

¶ 7 As its prayer for relief in each of the five cases, DCFS requested the juvenile court 

reconsider and strike the portions of its dispositional orders requiring a DCFS caseworker to be 

present at all subsequent hearings. In the alternative, DCFS requested the court hold an 

evidentiary hearing to determine whether the minors’ best interests necessitated the presence 

of a DCFS employee at the next hearing and in any subsequent hearing in each case.

¶ 8 In April 2013, the juvenile court held a hearing on the motions. At the hearing, DCFS 

asserted that section 1-17 of the Juvenile Act imposed the burden on a private caseworker 

assigned to the case to have specific knowledge regarding that case. In the event the 

caseworker was unprepared or failed to adequately inform the court about the case, the court 

had three remedies available: to (1) remove DCFS as guardian and appoint someone else as 

guardian of the child, (2) withhold a “reasonable efforts” finding, resulting in a loss for DCFS 

of federal reimbursement money, and (3) issue a contempt ruling. DCFS also argued the court 

could do “a lot of steering” in a case by finding the services outlined in a service plan were not 

reasonably calculated to facilitate achievement of the permanency goal, thereby forcing a 

caseworker to file a new service plan within 45 days. In addition, the court could enforce 

section 2-28(2) of the Juvenile Act (705 ILCS 405/2-28(2) (West 2012)), which requires 

caseworkers to file permanency reports 14 days before a permanency hearing, and the court 

would then know before a hearing whether it needed to subpoena DCFS. DCFS also argued 

that the juvenile court’s practice of routinely requiring DCFS employees to appear at all 

hearings did not serve the purpose of providing the court with better information about the 

minors’ cases.

¶ 9 The State took no position on the verified motions. The guardian ad litem (GAL) and the 

parents’ attorneys requested that the juvenile court deny DCFS’s motions.

¶ 10 The juvenile court rejected DCFS’s request that the court hold an evidentiary hearing in 

each case before requiring a DCFS employee to appear at subsequent hearings. The court noted 

that since DCFS had eliminated the court monitors’ positions, the quality of reports the court 

received from private agencies had declined dramatically and caseworkers had been 

unresponsive. Following the hearing, the court took the matter under advisement.

¶ 11 In June 2013, the juvenile court issued orders in each case denying the motions to 

reconsider. The court found that the plain language of section 1-17 of the Juvenile Act did not 

require the court to hold an evidentiary hearing before requiring DCFS’s appearance in cases. 

Rather, section 1-17 of the Juvenile Act required only that the court set forth its reasons in 

writing, which the court had done. Thus, the court found DCFS’s argument to be “completely 

without merit.”
- 5 -

¶ 12 The juvenile court stated that, “simply put,” DCFS made a “massive mistake” by 

eliminating the two court monitor positions. Without the court monitors, it seemed DCFS was 

not monitoring the vendors to which it assigned cases “in any meaningful way.” The court 

noted that the vendors (1) routinely failed to follow court orders, including visitation and “no 

contact” orders; (2) recommended outcomes that were not permissible under the Juvenile Act 

or DCFS regulations; (3) failed to notify the court of significant issues with foster placements 

or of instances when minors left their placements for significant periods of time; and (4) failed 

to attend court or file timely or meaningful reports. The court rejected DCFS’s suggestions as 

to the actions it could take when it was dissatisfied with DCFS’s performance, reasoning that 

juvenile abuse and neglect proceedings are expedited because children need permanency as 

rapidly as it can be obtained, and by the time a permanency hearing is held, “it is imperative 

that the court have a complete, meaningful, and timely report.”

¶ 13 The following month, DCFS filed a notice of appeal in each case. This court docketed case 

No. 12-JA-52 as No. 4-13-0604, case No. 12-JA-47 as No. 4-13-0607, case No. 12-JA-51 as 

No. 4-13-0608, case No. 12-JA-54 as No. 4-13-0609, and case No. 12-JA-53 as No. 

4-13-0611. We then consolidated the cases on appeal.

¶ 14 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 15 On appeal, the Director contends the juvenile court erred by ordering DCFS employees to 

appear at the hearings because (1) section 1-17 of the Juvenile Act establishes a general rule 

that a private-agency caseworker assigned to a minor’s case may appear and testify at juvenile 

court proceedings without the presence of a DCFS employee, and (2) the limited statutory 

exception to the general rule in section 1-17 applies only where the circuit court makes an 

individualized factual finding after hearing evidence.

¶ 16 This case presents an issue of statutory construction, which is a question of law that we 

review de novo. Relf v. Shatayeva, 2013 IL 114925, ¶ 21, 998 N.E.2d 18. “The primary goal in 

construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent,” and the most 

reliable indicator of that intent is the statute’s language. Id. ¶ 23, 998 N.E.2d 18. “When the 

statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied as written, without resort to 

extrinsic aids of statutory construction.” Solon v. Midwest Medical Records Ass’n, 236 Ill. 2d 

433, 440, 925 N.E.2d 1113, 1117 (2010). By contrast, “where the language of a statute is 

ambiguous, we may consider other sources such as legislative history to ascertain the 

legislature’s intent.” Gruszeczka v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2013 IL 114212, 

¶ 17, 992 N.E.2d 1234. “A statute is ambiguous when it is capable of being understood by 

reasonably well-informed persons in two or more different senses.” Id. ¶ 16, 992 N.E.2d 1234.

¶ 17 As previously detailed, when the juvenile court makes a minor a ward of the court and 

determines that the minor’s parents are unfit to care for the minor, the court may appoint the 

Guardianship Administrator of DCFS as the minor’s guardian. 705 ILCS 405/2-27(1)(d) (West 

2012). In turn, the Guardianship Administrator may designate as the minor’s caseworker an 

employee from a private social services agency that has contracted with DCFS. 20 ILCS 

505/23 (West 2012); 705 ILCS 405/1-17 (West 2012). Section 1-17 of the Juvenile Act (705 

ILCS 405/1-17 (West 2012)), which governs the assignment of private social service agency 

caseworkers, provides as follows:

“With respect to any minor for whom the Department of Children and Family Services 

Guardianship Administrator is appointed the temporary custodian or guardian, the 
- 6 -

Guardianship Administrator may designate in writing a private agency or an employee 

of a private agency to appear at court proceedings and testify as to the factual matters 

contained in the casework files and recommendations involving the minor. The private 

agency or the employee of a private agency must have personal and thorough 

knowledge of the facts of the case in which the appointment is made. The designated 

private agency or employee shall appear at the proceedings. If the Court finds that it is 

in the best interests of the minor that an employee or employees of the Department 

appear in addition to the private agency or employee of a private agency, the Court 

shall set forth the reasons in writing for their required appearance.”

¶ 18 Thus, the plain language of the statute makes clear that when DCFS designates a private 

agency or its employee as a minor’s caseworker, that agency or employee is responsible for 

having knowledge of the case and for appearing at hearings. The second portion of the statute 

also makes clear that, after DCFS assigns a private caseworker to a minor’s case, the juvenile 

court may nonetheless order a DCFS employee to appear at subsequent hearings if the court (1) 

finds it is in the minor’s best interests and (2) sets forth the reasons for the DCFS employee’s 

appearance in writing. The question becomes whether, as here, the court can enact a blanket 

requirement that DCFS appear at all hearings without first making a finding based on the 

unique circumstances of that particular case that the minor’s best interests necessitate the 

appearance.

¶ 19 We conclude, under the plain language of the statute, it cannot. The statute requires the 

juvenile court make a finding “that it is in the best interests of the minor” that a DCFS 

employee appear. 705 ILCS 405/1-17 (West 2012). This language means the court must make 

some type of particularized finding relating to the specific minor’s case. To hold otherwise 

would effectively circumvent the first portion of the statute allowing private-agency 

employees to appear at hearings in place of DCFS employees. See Madison Two Associates v. 

Pappas, 227 Ill. 2d 474, 493, 884 N.E.2d 142, 155 (2008) (“[W]henever possible courts must 

construe statutes so that no part is rendered a nullity.”). Requiring DCFS to appear at a hearing 

when a private-agency caseworker who possesses personal and thorough knowledge of the 

facts of the case would be present, without a finding as to how DCFS’s appearance would be in 

the minor’s best interests, would contradict the purpose of the statute.

¶ 20 The Director also contends that before making its best-interests determination, the juvenile 

court must first hold an evidentiary hearing. We disagree. The statute does not specify that a 

hearing is necessary, nor does it set forth the type of evidence the court would consider at such 

a hearing. Rather, the statute states the court must make a best-interests finding and set forth its 

reasons in writing for requiring DCFS to appear. We may not read into the statute exceptions, 

limitations or conditions which the legislature did not express. Skokie Castings, Inc. v. Illinois 

Insurance Guaranty Fund, 2013 IL 113873, ¶ 38, 998 N.E.2d 69.

¶ 21 The juvenile court’s concern for protecting the best interests of the minors is commendable 

and appropriate given the nature of these proceedings. Nonetheless, the plain language of the 

statute makes clear that before requiring DCFS’s appearance at hearings, the court must make 

an individualized finding that DCFS’s appearance is in the best interests of the particular 

minor. Therefore, a blanket statement requiring DCFS’s appearance at each hearing does not 

satisfy section 1-17 of the Juvenile Act. Trial courts are entitled, as required by statute, to have 

appearing before them private-agency caseworkers who have “personal and thorough 

knowledge of the facts of the case.” 705 ILCS 405/1-17 (West 2012). Thus, if a private agency 
- 7 -

fails to adhere to its statutory obligations, the trial court would be entitled to take appropriate 

action in that particular case.

¶ 22 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 23 For the reasons stated, we vacate the portion of the dispositional orders requiring a DCFS 

employee to attend all proceedings; we otherwise affirm.

¶ 24 Affirmed in part and vacated in part.