Court Opinion

ID: 9410777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-24 15:06:12.983627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:59.531863
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (2d) 230122-U
                                         No. 2-23-0122
                                    Order filed July 24, 2023

      NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
      in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________

                                              IN THE

                              APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                              SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

In re I.S., a Minor                               ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                                  ) of De Kalb County.
                                                  )
                                                  ) No. 22-JA-25
                                                  )
(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner- ) Honorable
Appellee, v. Joseph S., Respondent-               ) Sarah Gallagher Chami,
Appellant).                                       ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

       JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court.
       Justices Schostok and Kennedy concurred in the judgment.

                                             ORDER

¶1     Held: Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted where appellate jurisdiction is
             lacking; we therefore dismiss the appeal.

¶2     On March 24, 2023, the circuit court of De Kalb County entered a temporary custody order

restoring guardianship and custody of I.S. to respondent, Joseph S., and Charlotte S., a/k/a

Charlotte P. (mother), along with a supplemental protective order setting forth the obligations of

the parents regarding their guardianship and custody of I.S. On April 12, 2023, respondent filed a

notice of appeal purporting to appeal a March 23, 2022, order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 317

(eff. July 1, 2017) (dealing with appeals as of right from the appellate court to the supreme court).

Respondent’s appointed counsel has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1968). See In re Alexa J., 345 Ill. App. 3d 985 (2003) (holding that Anders applies in
2023 IL App (2d) 230122-U

termination of parental rights cases and outlining the procedure to be followed when appellate

counsel seeks to withdraw). Appellate counsel’s notice of filing and proof of service indicate that

he sent to respondent by email, regular mail, and certified mail a copy of the motion to withdraw.

More than 30 days has elapsed and respondent has not filed a response. Appellate counsel

contends that the appeal of this case must be dismissed because no appealable order has been

entered in the trial court. After reviewing the record and counsel’s motion, we grant the motion to

withdraw and dismiss this appeal.

¶3                                        I. BACKGROUND

¶4      On March 22, 2022, the State filed a petition for adjudication of neglect for I.S. On March

23, 2022, the trial court entered three orders: (1) an order for the issuance of a juvenile warrant for

I.S., (2) an order appointing CASA De Kalb County, Inc. (CASA), as guardian ad litem for I.S.,

and (3) an order appointing counsel for I.S. and for respondent (for shelter care only). On March

28, 2022, the court entered a temporary custody order. On April 22, 2022, respondent filed a notice

of appeal challenging the March 28, 2022, order and a March 25, 2022, order. 1 In re I.S., No. 2-

22-0134. 2

¶5      On June 17, 2022, the State filed its first amended petition for adjudication of neglect, and,

on June 27, 2022, the court timely commenced the adjudicatory hearing and continued the matter

        1
            There is no March 25, 2022, order appearing in the record. It is possible that this is a

scrivener’s error mistranscribing the dates of the three March 23, 2022, orders. Copies of the

challenged orders were not attached to respondent’s notice of appeal, so we cannot definitively

determine which orders beyond the March 28, 2022, order respondent intended to appeal.
        2
            On July 7, 2022, upon the State’s motion, this appeal was dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

                                                 -2-
2023 IL App (2d) 230122-U

for further proceedings. The matter was continued from time to time, and, on January 13, 2023,

respondent and I.S.’s mother both stipulated to a finding that I.S. was a neglected minor. The court

continued the matter for a February 10, 2023, dispositional hearing.

¶6      On February 10, 2023, the trial court entered an order continuing the dispositional hearing.

The order noted that the “parties waive [the] time frame [for holding a dispositional hearing].” On

March 14, 2023, the mother filed a motion to vacate the temporary custody order.

¶7      On March 24, 2023, the trial court entered a temporary custody order. In this order, the

court determined that it was “no longer a matter of urgent and immediate necessity for the

protection of [I.S. that she] be placed in a shelter care facility.” Instead, “Temporary Guardianship

and Custody [was] placed with Parents, subject to Supplemental Protective Orders.” The order

additionally provided for a May 12, 2023, status hearing. Also on March 24, the court entered a

supplemental protective order outlining respondent’s and the mother’s responsibilities as

conditions of their guardianship and custody of I.S. The supplemental protective order specifically

provided that this matter was “still pre-disposition, and [was] a ‘placement’ case, and not an

‘intact’ case, pending further proceedings.”

¶8      On April 12, 2023, respondent filed a notice of appeal, purporting to appeal a March 23,

2022, order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 317, and failing to attach any copies of the order or

orders being appealed. On April 13, 2023, counsel was appointed to represent respondent on

appeal. Appellate counsel now moves to withdraw, asserting that there is no basis for appellate

jurisdiction.

¶9                                        II. ANALYSIS

¶ 10    Counsel seeks to withdraw, contending that, on this record, there is no basis for this court

to exercise appellate jurisdiction. In Alexa J., 345 Ill. App. 3d at 988-89, this court held that

counsel must follow the Anders procedure and provide a record of the unfitness and best interests

                                                -3-
2023 IL App (2d) 230122-U

hearing. In addition, counsel must, if possible, identify any potentially meritorious issues and

demonstrate why they are not meritorious. Id.

¶ 11   On appeal, counsel avers that he has reviewed the record on appeal and concluded that,

because no final orders or appealable interlocutory orders have been entered in the trial court, this

court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal. We agree.

¶ 12   As an initial matter, we note that respondent’s notice of appeal identifies an order dated

March 23, 2022, as the judgment being appealed. On that date, the trial court entered an order

appointing the public defender to represent respondent for purposes of the pending shelter care

hearing, an order appointing CASA as guardian ad litem for I.S., and an order directing that a

juvenile warrant for I.S. issue.

¶ 13   As a general matter, an appellate court has jurisdiction to hear appeals only from final

judgments entered in the circuit court. Johnson v. Armstrong, 2022 IL 127942, ¶ 19. A final order

or judgment terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case, so that, if

affirmed, the trial court need only proceed with the execution of the judgment. Id. ¶ 21. None of

the March 23, 2022, orders are final orders. We are thus without jurisdiction to consider an appeal

from those orders as specified in respondent’s notice of appeal. Id. ¶ 19. Moreover, even if the

March 23, 2022, orders constituted final judgments, respondent would have had 30 days from the

entry of the orders in which to appeal them. Ill. S. Ct. R. 303 (eff. July 1, 2017). Respondent’s

April 12, 2023, notice of appeal is therefore untimely and does not confer jurisdiction.

¶ 14   We also consider that respondent’s notice of appeal contains a scrivener’s error regarding

the date of the order appealed. On March 24, 2023, the trial court entered a temporary custody

order restoring to respondent and mother guardianship and custody of I.S. Within 30 days

thereafter, on April 12, 2023, respondent filed his notice of appeal. It is conceivable that

                                                -4-
2023 IL App (2d) 230122-U

respondent made a scrivener’s error on the notice of appeal, mistakenly writing “03/23/2022”

when he meant March 24, 2023.

¶ 15   Such a scenario provides respondent no assistance. The March 24, 2023, order is nonfinal

on its face, being a temporary custody order. Moreover, the matter was set for further status,

thereby contemplating further proceedings on the issues that brought I.S. before the court. As a

nonfinal order, the March 24, 2023, order does not confer appellate jurisdiction. Johnson, 2022

IL 127942, ¶ 19.

¶ 16   Further, in the context of proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705

ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)), it is long settled that a dispositional order, which provides for

the minor’s placement, represents a final judgment for purposes of appeal. In re J.M., 151 Ill. App.

3d 1037, 1038 (1987). By contrast, an adjudicatory order, in which the trial court determines

whether a minor is abused or neglected, is but the first step on the road to a dispositional order and

does not constitute a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Id.

¶ 17   The record on appeal does not contain a dispositional order. At most, the January 13, 2023,

order in which both mother and respondent stipulated to the trial court’s finding that I.S. was

abused or neglected, constitutes a nonfinal adjudicatory order. This order, being nonfinal, does

not confer appellate jurisdiction. Id.

¶ 18   Interlocutory orders may be rendered appealable under the Supreme Court Rules. Illinois

Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(6) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017) provides for an appeal as of right regarding

orders “terminating parental rights” or ruling on a temporary commitment in adoption proceedings.

The record contains no order terminating respondent’s parental rights, so Rule 307 is unavailable

to confer appellate jurisdiction; likewise, the record does not indicate that I.S. has been placed for

adoption, so Rule 307 remains unavailable to confer appellate jurisdiction.

                                                -5-
2023 IL App (2d) 230122-U

¶ 19   Finally, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(5) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020), provides for a permissive

interlocutory appeal of “interlocutory orders affecting the care and custody of *** unemancipated

minors.” The record reveals no petition for leave to appeal any order entered by the trial court in

this case. Rather, respondent’s notice of appeal purports to raise an appeal as of right. Rule

306(a)(5), therefore, does not confer appellate jurisdiction.

¶ 20   We have considered all the trial court’s orders in the record on appeal and have determined

there is no basis to establish our jurisdiction to consider any potential issue on appeal.

Accordingly, we must grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal.

¶ 21                                    III. CONCLUSION

¶ 22   For the foregoing reasons, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss

the appeal.

¶ 23   Appeal dismissed.

                                                -6-