Court Opinion

ID: 9819599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:28:28.298491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:31.297250
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STEIGMANN, specially concurring: This is an unfortunate case. It is always regrettable when this court reverses a termination of parental rights judgment based solely, as here, on technical deficiencies in the record. Although I concur with the majority opinion, I write separately to point out that the primary problem in this case could have been avoided. The primary problem was the trial court’s granting of respondent mother’s appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. That motion speaks in conclusory language about how respondent mother “had engaged in conduct referred [to] in Rule 1.16(B)” of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (134 Ill. 2d R. 1.16(b)(1)(D)), which in turn permit an attorney to withdraw his representation when (1) the client’s conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to carry out his employment effectively and (2) the lawyer provides notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13 (134 Ill. 2d R. 13). Because of the significance of termination of parental rights proceedings, the law requires that all respondents be represented by counsel, unless that right is knowingly waived. When the court appoints counsel in such cases or in criminal cases, difficulties frequently arise. The party benefitting from the services of appointed counsel will often complain about those services, or, as here, the appointed counsel will complain about a lack of responsiveness by his or her client. Experience teaches that with such troublesome clients, changing court-appointed counsel rarely improves anything. This case is an example. The record is bereft of any indication that — whatever problems respondent mother’s court-appointed counsel was having— some other court-appointed counsel would not encounter the same problems or would be able to do any better. The trial court should not have granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. Instead, the court should have continued that representation at least until respondent mother was present in court. At that time, the court could have (1) reminded her of the seriousness of the proceedings; (2) explained to her that her court-appointed lawyer would continue in that capacity; and (3) explained to her that if she continued to behave in a fashion adverse to that representation, her case would be adversely affected. As an additional matter, this record presents concerns about the adequacy of service upon all the parties. That issue should be carefully addressed upon remand.