Respondent father appealed. The basic issue before this court is whether a trial court may terminate continuance of a case under supervision under section 2-20 without a petition to terminate continuance under supervision having been filed or a hearing on such a petition having been held. 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 therefore consider every part of the statute together 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 indicates that the trial court terminated continuing the case under supervision and entered its adjudicatory order in violation of section 2-20 of the Act. If a petition is filed charging a violation of a condition of the continuance under supervision, the court shall conduct a hearing . However, no party objected to continuance of the case under supervision here until after the court terminated continuance under supervision and entered its adjudicatory order. The court clearly did not hold a hearing to determine whether the parents were cooperating fully and completely with DCFS prior to terminating respondent's supervision.