Court Opinion

ID: 9719782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:03:28.57768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:09.797479
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION UPON DENIAL OF REHEARING Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN delivered the opinion of the court: We have reviewed the matters set forth in respondent’s petition for rehearing, and we find no basis for any change in our opinion. However, she does raise a matter that we believe merits further consideration. We held that we lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal of Kenneth Kerwood, because a notice of appeal filed on his behalf did not meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 303 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 303). Respondent now argues that we had the power to allow an amendment to the notice of appeal regarding Kenneth. She reaches this conclusion by first pointing out that Supreme Court Rule 606(d) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 606(d)) provides, “The notice of appeal may be amended by leave of court possessed of the record.” She then argues “that this court has the power, under Supreme Court Rule 606(d) 0 ° which applies to all juvenile proceedings # * °, to amend a notice at any time * ° We disagree with this argument, as we are of the opinion that Rule 606(d) has only limited application to juvenile proceedings. Prior to 1968, article VI of the Supreme Court Rules (Rules 601-700) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 110A, par. 601 et seq.) was entitled “Criminal Appeals Rules,” and had application only to criminal cases. In 1968, Rule 661 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110A, par. 661) was added. It was then the only rule in article VI providing for appeals from orders entered in juvenile proceedings. It was entitled, “Appeals by Minors Found to be Delinquent” and it applied only to appeals from proceedings where a minor was found delinquent and, as the Committee Comments state, it was added to meet the requirements of In re Gault (1967), 387 U.S. 1, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527, 87 S. Ct. 1428. Thereafter, effective October 1, 1975, Rule 661 was amended to read: “Upon the filing of a notice of appeal in any proceeding in which a minor has been found to be delinquent, or in which probation or conditional discharge imposed in such a proceeding has been revoked, appointment of counsel and the provision of a transcript of the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings without cost to the minor shall be governed by Rule 607.” And, effective the same date, Rule 660 was added. It was entitled, “Appeals in cases arising under the Juvenile Court Act,” and it read as follows: “(a) Delinquent Minors. Appeals from final judgments in delinquent minor proceedings, except as otherwise specifically provided, shall be governed, by the rules applicable to criminal cases. (b) Other Proceedings. In aU other proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act, including proceedings involving a minor in need of supervision, a neglected minor, or a dependent minor, appeals from final judgments shaU be governed by the rules applicable to civil cases.” Recently, this court has held that Rule 660 may be applied retroactively, as it ° ” clarifies rather than changes ‘the procedure in appeals from determinations under the Juvenile Court Act.’ ” In re Davis (1976), 44 Ill. App. 3d 970, 358 N.E.2d 1233.  The appeal as to Kenneth Kerwood was not from a finding of delinquency but was from an order appointing a guardian with authority to consent to the adoption of Kenneth. Thus, the law in effect prior to and subsequent to the filing of Kenneth’s appeal on September 18, 1975, required that it be governed by the rules applicable to civil cases, and we hold that Supreme Court Rule 303 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 303) was properly applied here. In view thereof, the petition for rehearing will be denied. LORENZ and MEJDA, JJ., concur.