Court Opinion

ID: 9721865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:11:21.200814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:29.008808
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting: In this case the rights of parents to the custody and control of their children are involved. This is the type of case wherein the litigants are constitutionally entitled to access to the courts. (See Boddie v. Connecticut (1971), 401 U.S. 371, 28 L. Ed. 2d 113, 91 S. Ct. 780.) An appeal in this, a civil case, is but a continuation of the trial court proceeding and every final judgment in a civil case is appealable as a right. (Supreme Court Rule 303, 73 Ill. 2d R. 303.) Thus, if the parents are constitutionally entitled to have access to the trial court, they are constitutionally entitled to appeal. They did not file a timely notice of appeal, but such was not done because of a misapprehension that originated with the trial judge. This record clearly establishes by the affidavit of the trial court judge, which, with commendable candor, recites that he had advised counsel not to worry about filing a notice of appeal because other counsel would be appointed for that purpose. It is clear from this record that the timely notice of appeal was not filed because of an error or misunderstanding of the trial court and not because of the litigants. It is simply contrary to my notion of fundamental fairness that this appeal be dismissed under such circumstances. We have authority under such circumstances to allow a late notice of appeal and should do so. See People v. Keeney (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 280, 259 N.E.2d 56; People v. Brown (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 307, 235 N.E.2d 562.