Court Opinion

ID: 9819451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:25:33.534266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:30.668159
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE QUINN, specially concurring: I concur in affirming the order of the trial court. The McGuires’ position on appeal is that the only order that the juvenile court had authority to enter under the Juvenile Court Act was a determination of whether DCFS’s placement of M.V with the McGuires was appropriate. The McGuires cite this court’s holding in M.V. I, as authority for their position. The juvenile court’s finding went further, determining that placement with the Joneses was more appropriate. While we cite In re A.L., 294 Ill. App. 3d 441 (1998), and In re Chiara C., 279 Ill. App. 3d 761 (1996), for our holding that the trial court was statutorily authorized to conduct a permanency hearing, I believe another basis exists for this holding. On March 4, 1998, the Cook County public guardian’s office filed a motion entitled “[M.V’s] Motion to Vacate Certain Orders.” That motion included the following statement: “As a result of lengthy discussions, attorneys.in the General Counsel and Regional Counsel offices of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (‘DCFS’), attorneys in the office of the Cook County Public Guardian on behalf of M.V, and attorneys representing the intervenor current foster parents, Roselyn and Allen Jones, and the intervenor former foster parents, Patrice and Philip McGuire, have agreed to a process to resolve this uncertainty. To this end, the parties have agreed to request that this Court render a decision as to M.V’s foster placement ***.” When the motion came on to be heard in the trial court on March 9, 1998, the attorney for the McGuires made the following statements: “There are other avenues that the parents, the Jones [es] and the [Public Guardian] have, as far as the administrative process. The parties got together *** to try to put it all in one forum so that we don’t re-litigate this as administrative ***. What we are trying to do is combine it all in one *** hearing.” The attorney for DCFS made the following statements: “Everyone objected to the service appeal. We don’t want to litigate in two forums. [DCFS] said we don’t want to litigate the case where the Court has a right to place under [a section 2—28] order. We came up with an agreement ***. We *** decided the forum we could agree upon is in front of you to make a decision regarding the foster parents ***. *** [W]e agreed to do this in front of you.” When the trial court further considered the motion on March 18, 1998, the attorney for the McGuires made the following statements: “I agree with the motion. I think all the parties sat down, and the purpose of the Court vacating its Order is so that this can all be decided at one shot, your Honor. There was [sic] many forums everybody could have ran [sic] to. In the best interests of M.V, the parties agreed that we would come here, and everybody was notified of that meeting. *** [I]t was agreed that we try to do this in one place so that after the Court makes a ruling, we don’t go to another administrative hearing on this case. The McGuires are in favor of the motion.” On appeal, the McGuires assert that they merely agreed to have the juvenile court review whether DCFS’ decision to place M.V with the McGuires was appropriate, considering that the permanency goal was adoption. This contention is belied by not only the transcripts above, but also by the conduct of the court and the parties. The public guardian and the Joneses called witnesses relating to M.V’s placement with the Joneses. These actions were consistent with their position that the juvenile court was conducting a permanency hearing to determine the ultimate placement of M.V The actions of the McGuires throughout this case from it’s inception have been consistent in showing that they have always acted in the best interests of M.V, as loving parents should. These actions evidenced a desire on the part of the McGuires to resolve the issue of which foster parents would be allowed to adopt M.V in as short a time as possible. It is vitally important that child custody cases be decided as expeditiously as possible. While M.V lived with the McGuires for almost four years, she has now lived with the Jones family for almost three years. While it is perfectly understandable and even commendable that the McGuires explore every avenue which could possibly lead to the return of M.Y, all of the parties requested the juvenile court to make the determination that it did.