Opinion ID: 2015708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Statutes and Legal Precedents

Text: To be sure, the welfare and protection of minors has always been considered one of the State's most fundamental interests. This court long ago acknowledged the right and duty of the General Assembly to legislate for the protection and welfare of its minors: [I]t would be a sad commentary on our State government, if it is true, as is contended, there is no constitutional power in the legislature to provide, by suitable legislation, for [minors'] education, control and protection. It is the unquestioned right and imperative duty of every enlightened government, in its character of parens patriae, to protect and provide for the comfort and well-being of such of its citizens as, by reason of infancy, defective understanding, or other misfortune or infirmity, are unable to take care of themselves. The performance of this duty is justly regarded as one of the most important of governmental functions, and all constitutional limitations must be so understood and construed as not to interfere with its proper and legitimate exercise. County of McLean v. Humphreys, 104 Ill. 378, 383 (1882). This public policy has led our courts to recognize that even parents' rights are secondary to the State's strong interest in protecting children when the potential for abuse or neglect exists. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); In re Wheat, 68 Ill.App.3d 471, 477, 25 Ill.Dec. 7, 386 N.E.2d 278 (1979). Moreover, the legislature has the right to provide the necessary instrumentalities or agencies for the accomplishment of its goals in preventing abuse and neglect. Humphreys, 104 Ill. at 384. DCFS is one such created agency, and it plays a central role in implementing this compelling state interest. The General Assembly specifically charged it to protect and promote the welfare of the children of this state. 20 ILCS 505/1 (West 1992); In re C.J., 166 Ill.2d 264, 270, 209 Ill.Dec. 775, 652 N.E.2d 315 (1995). Recognizing such protection and promotion necessitates both investigation of and contact with those children and families who need assistance, the legislature empowered the agency to make any investigations it deems necessary to perform its duties. 20 ILCS 505/21 (West 1992). To that end, the agency employs child welfare specialists who are trained in (i) detection of symptoms of child neglect and drug abuse; (ii) dealing with families and children of drug abusers; and (iii) child development, family dynamics and interview techniques. 20 ILCS 505/21 (West 1992). The legislature also gave the agency the power to make any rules necessary for the execution of its powers and expressly adopted the regulations it promulgates under the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act as part of the Children and Family Services Act. 20 ILCS 505/4 (West 1992). In order to identify the well-defined and dominant public policy implicated in the present case, we must examine DCFS's specific duties as they related to the three children assigned to DuBose at the time of the incident. DCFS became involved with the family as a result of a report of abuse in the children's home made under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act (325 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 1992)). The Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act contemplates that once grounds for temporary removal from the home are indicated, all subsequent proceedings are to be made pursuant to article II of the Juvenile Court Act. See 325 ILCS 5/7.14 (West 1992). Accordingly, DCFS is required by legislative fiat to assist a Circuit Court during all stages of the court proceedings in accordance with the purposes of this Act and the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. 325 ILCS 5/8.3 (West 1992). We note that the General Assembly has amended this statute during the pendency of these proceedings. See Pub.Act 88-310, § 5, eff. January 1, 1994. The section currently provides that DCFS assist the circuit court by providing full, complete, and accurate information to the court and that the [f]ailure to provide assistance requested by a court shall be enforceable through proceedings for contempt of court. (Emphasis added.) See 325 ILCS 5/8.3 (West 1994). DCFS subsequently classified the report of abuse initially made in this case as indicated (see 325 ILCS 5/7.14 (West 1992)), and pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act, the circuit court placed the children in the agency's custody. 705 ILCS 405/2-10 (West 1992). In such circumstances, DCFS is then required to develop an appropriate service plan for the family. 325 ILCS 5/8.2 (West 1992). Thereafter, the children's custody may be modified in a number of ways, one of which includes placement with a relative. 705 ILCS 405/2-10 (West 1992). Here, custody of the children was transferred to their maternal grandmother in accordance with their mother's wishes. See 705 ILCS 405/2-27 (West 1992) (allowing juvenile court to place a ward of the court with relative if parents are unable to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minor and family preservations services are unsuccessful). That transfer resulted in the grandmother's being made the legal guardian of the children. 705 ILCS 405/2-27(3) (West 1992). The creation of such a legal guardianship in this case, however, ended neither the juvenile court's involvement with the children nor that of DCFS. That is because the guardianship at this stage is not considered permanentit is always subject to modification and review of the court. 705 ILCS 405/2-27(6), 2-28 (West 1992). In fact, DCFS is still required by law to provide appropriate services to, any family whose child has been placed in substitute care. 20 ILCS 505/5(l) (West 1992). In response to the General Assembly's requirement that DCFS establish rules and regulations concerning its operation of programs with regard to placement under section 2-27 of the Juvenile Court Act (20 ILCS 505/5(g)(9) (West 1992)), the agency promulgated rules which require service plans be made at least every six months for the child and the family regardless of whether they are served directly by DCFS. See 89 Ill.Adm.Code § 305.5 (1989). In the context of placement of abused or neglected children under the Juvenile Court Act, the obligation to develop such case plans serves to fulfill the legislative goal of moving the child toward the most permanent living arrangement and permanent legal status. 20 ILCS 505/6a (West 1992). Thus, the plans are to be reviewed and updated every six months. 20 ILCS 505/6a (West 1992). Moreover, to facilitate the juvenile court's review, the legal guardian is also required by law to file case plans with the court every six months. 705 ILCS 405/2-28(2) (West 1992). Specifically, the General Assembly has mandated that DCFS: shall review the forms    returned by each    guardian and supplement the information provided therein, where required, by such additional consultations with the    guardian and such other investigations as may be necessary and, applying the standard and regulations established by the Department, shall determine whether and the extent to which, the parent or guardian or together in any combination, are reasonably able to provide parental payment for care and training of their children. (Emphasis added.) 20 ILCS 505/9.4 (West 1992). Once the child has been placed pursuant to section 2-27 of the Juvenile Court Act, the next step in the proceedings is either a termination of the parental rights with adoption to follow, or a reunification with the biological parents. See 705 ILCS 405/2-28(1) (West 1992). The court, however, will not discharge a minor or officially close the case until it specifically finds that it is in the best interests of the minor to do so and that the public no longer has an interest in keeping the case in the system. 705 ILCS 405/2-30 (West 1992). It is worth pointing out at this point in our discussion that these placement proceedings represent just a portion of the comprehensive legislative scheme designed for the welfare and protection of children found to be abused or neglected. We focus on this stage only because it was in this context that DuBose reported that she had seen the children and that they were doing fine. Her uniform progress report, intended for submission to the juvenile court, also contained her statement that one of the minor children had told her that she liked living with her grandmother and other siblings. Although we recognize that there is less likelihood that the child is still threatened with abuse or neglect because the child has been removed from the harmful environment, the court's concentration remains fixed upon that child's safety and welfare. This is because the placement is only temporary in nature. The decisions which the juvenile court is mandated by statute to render in this area require accurate reporting, honest evaluation, and personal observation of both child and guardian on the part of the trained child welfare specialist assigned to the case. Indeed, DCFS's continued involvement with the placed child at these proceedings reveals the General Assembly's recognition of reality: it is the specialist, not the trial judge, who is versed in the areas of child development and family dynamics. Honesty and zealousness are essential in order to guarantee that the permanent placement with the guardian or the restoration of parental rights is indeed in the best interests of a child whose life has already been disrupted by abuse and/or neglect. We, therefore, have little difficulty in concluding that there exists a well-defined and dominant public policy against DCFS's employment of individuals whose dishonesty and neglect could seriously undermine the welfare, safety, and protection of minors. The statutes we have cited cannot, in any way, be viewed as mere general considerations of supposed public policy concerning the proper placement of children whose lives have already been disrupted by abuse and/or neglect. That no harm apparently resulted to the children from this inaccurate representation and the apparent three-year neglect is hardly comforting. Nor should it be the yardstick by which application of the public policy exception is measured. Our identification of this public policy also augments the appellate court's conclusion in Department of Central Management Services v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, 245 Ill.App.3d 87, 97, 185 Ill.Dec. 379, 614 N.E.2d 513 (1993), that there exists a public policy of both timely contact with the children and accurate documentation of investigations necessary for DCFS to fulfill its legislative mandate of investigating claims of suspected child abuse and neglect.