Court Opinion

ID: 9819789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:36:26.603426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:32.239163
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE CAHILL, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. There is no question that the various requirements of the Juvenile Court Act can appear to be counterintuitive and not in the best interests of the child when viewed from the trial court trenches. That is what happened here. An able, thoughtful trial judge believed the DCFS interpretation of the Act impeded his ability to act in the best interests of the child before him. He proceeded to interpret the Act in such a way that allowed him to enter a finding of neglect without the parents being notified or made a party to the proceeding. The facts of this case may be the exception that should be allowed by the rule, but the notice and hearing requirements of the statute are rooted in parental rights that have been held to be fundamental and of constitutional dimension. It is for the legislature to limit them, and the limitation should be clear and beyond dispute. That is the opinion of our Attorney General in this case, arguing on behalf of DCFS. I agree and would reverse.