Court Opinion

ID: 9819089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:18:25.27326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:27.864673
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring: I agree with the majority in all respects save the reasoning employed to arrive at the conclusion that the adoption action was “state action.” The majority adequately sets out the pertinent facts. The State did prosecute an action under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1—1 et seq. (West 1994)) to remove the children from their mother’s custody. That action preceded the instant adoption action. The majority relies heavily on this fact, framing the issue as “not whether an indigent respondent parent may be treated differently depending on whether termination of parental rights is sought by the State or by prospective adoptive parents [; rather, the issue is] whether an indigent respondent parent may be treated differently depending on whether termination of her rights is sought by the State or by the person who obtained custody or guardianship of the child as a result of state action.” 198 Ill. 2d at 466. The majority does not explain its reliance on this distinction, however, and I do not believe that it forms a proper basis for the majority’s conclusion that there was “state action” in the adoption action. It would overstate matters to say that the custody proceeding and the adoption action were entirely unrelated, but they are not the same action, nor is the adoption action properly characterized as a continuation of the juvenile court action. The juvenile court action was not a necessary precursor to the adoption action. A person need not have custody or guardianship in order to file an adoption action in which parental rights are sought to be terminated. See 750 ILCS 50/1 (F)(b) (West 1994) (among persons “available for adoption” are children “to whose adoption no consent is required pursuant to Section 8 of [the Adoption] Act” (referring to 750 ILCS 50/8, which notes that consents or surrenders are not required of parents found to be an unfit person)); 750 ILCS 50/2 (West 1994) (no requirement that a party have custody or guardianship in order to file adoption action). Nor am I aware of any legal effect which the court hearing the adoption action must accord to any previous order of custody or guardianship. The fact that children may have been removed from a parent’s custody is legally irrelevant to the question of whether his or her parental rights should be terminated in a subsequent adoption action. The only basis offered by the majority for its linkage of the juvenile court action and the adoption action is its speculation that the State and the father colluded to deprive the mother of counsel in order to save the State money. 198 Ill. 2d at 466, 468-69. I find this quite unsettling. First, it is merely speculation. There could be any number of reasons for the State not instituting a proceeding to terminate parental rights, and there are also a number of non-nefarious reasons why prospective adoptive parents might wish to proceed with an adoption action themselves, with counsel of their choosing, rather than hanging their hopes on the State’s prosecution of a termination action under the Juvenile Court Act. I believe it is improper to ascribe such callow motives to the office of the State’s Attorney and the children’s father. Moreover, I do not see how this speculation can form the basis for linking the juvenile court action and the adoption action. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated that the motives of the State are beside the point: “[m]ere approval of or acquiescence in the initiatives of a private party is not sufficient to justify holding the State responsible for those initiatives under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004-05, 73 L. Ed. 2d 534, 547, 102 S. Ct. 2777, 2786 (1982). In the final analysis, I agree with the majority that the adoption action, involving termination of parental rights, does constitute state action. However, we may reach this conclusion without blurring the lines between a custody action and an adoption action or imputing base motives to the State and the children’s father. Regardless of motivations, state action may be found where “the private entity has exercised powers that are ‘traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State.’ ” Blum, 457 U.S. at 1005, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 547, 102 S. Ct. at 2786, quoting Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 353, 42 L. Ed. 2d 477, 485, 95 S. Ct. 449, 455 (1974). I would submit that the instant case falls squarely within this category. Clearly, individuals traditionally had no power to terminate other persons’ parental rights. Rather, this power was traditionally reserved to the state. I would find that the adoption action constituted state action for this reason, rather than because of the “ ‘specter’ ” (198 Ill. 2d at 466, quoting 316 Ill. App. 3d at 119) that the office of the State’s Attorney knowingly conspired with the children’s father to deprive the mother of counsel in an action to terminate her parental rights, in order to save the State money.