The basic issue before this court is whether a trial court may terminate continuance of a case under section 2-20 without a petition to terminate such continuance under supervision having been filed or a hearing to terminate such continuance under supervision. A court may not do so. The preeminent rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the language and intent of the legislature. To accomplish this goal, words used in the statutory provision should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. A court must consider every part of the statute together, therefore, and give every word or phrase some reasonable meaning.
Statutes are to be construed so that no clause is superfluous or void.
In addition, a court must assume that the legislature did not intend an absurd result. The plain language of the statute supports respondent mother's argument that the trial court terminated continuance of the case under supervision and entered its adjudicatory order in violation of state law. If a petition is filed charging a violation of a condition of the continuance under supervision, the court shall conduct a hearing . If the court finds that such condition of supervision has not been fulfilled the court may proceed to findings and adjudication and disposition . Moreover, even if this proposed interpretation were correct, the State did not voice any objection to the continuance under supervision until almost one month after the court terminated the continuance of the case under supervision, providing little support for the court's terminating the continuance under supervision about a month earlier without a petition being filed or a hearing being held.