{ "id": 5463503, "name": "In re FAITH A. STILLEY, a Minor.-(The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Rochelle Stilley, Appellee, et al. (Augustus M. Scott, Appellant).)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Stilley", "decision_date": "1977-05-20", "docket_number": "No. 48536", "first_page": "515", "last_page": "522", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "66 Ill. 2d 515" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "12 Ill. 2d 581", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2779011 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "584" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/12/0581-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Ill. 2d 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2709582 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/6/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 Ill. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2539817 ], "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/376/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 Ill. 2d 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2762343 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "566-67" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/16/0556-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ill. 2d 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2846784 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "210" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/42/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Ill. 2d 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2857780 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "83" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/39/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill. 2d 347", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5364732 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "350" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/28/0347-01" ] }, { "cite": "411 Ill. 618", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5313175 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "624" }, { "page": "624" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/411/0618-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ill. App. 3d 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2714701 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/37/0193-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 581, "char_count": 10328, "ocr_confidence": 0.847, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3234459660873352e-06, "percentile": 0.9897073149824565 }, "sha256": "b8291376032b742ce892d2095df3492679091439fa75dd53461493feab41ec40", "simhash": "1:ca89ff65381a85a5", "word_count": 1747 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:05.233646+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re FAITH A. STILLEY, a Minor.\u2014(The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Rochelle Stilley, Appellee, et al. (Augustus M. Scott, Appellant).)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE CLARK\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe State and Augustus M. Scott appeal from the appellate court\u2019s reversal of the circuit court\u2019s finding of neglect entered against Scott and Rochelle Stilley. The State initiated the cause on October 26, 1973, when it filed a petition for adjudication of wardship. The State filed the petition on behalf of four-year-old Faith Stilley, who had been found by police wandering the streets at 11 p.m. on October 22, 1973, and against the natural but unmarried parents, Rochelle Stilley and Augustus Scott. (By order of the court Scott was found to be the natural father.) On October 26, 1973, the court gave temporary custody to the guardianship administrator of Illinois and directed the guardian not to place Faith with either parent without the permission of the court.\nThe issue is whether the appellate court properly found the circuit court\u2019s determination of neglect to be against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Stilley (1976), 37 Ill. App. 3d 193.\nThe State\u2019s bill of particulars alleged that the child had been wandering the streets, was repeatedly left in the care of others by the mother, who sometimes failed to return, was subject to abuse physically, and was emotionally disturbed; that the mother had been admitted to a mental health center; and that neither the mother nor father was able to care for the child.\nFaith Stilley was born August 8, 1969, while Scott and Stilley were living together. Testimony evidenced that Stilley became a drug addict during this period of cohabitation, 1968 through 1971, and that Scott was in prison for a year (1972). After 1971, Faith stayed with Rochelle Stilley.\nAcquaintances who had met Stilley at the methadone treatment center where she was employed as a counselor testified that she had engaged in acts of prostitution and taken drugs. Stan Surma said Stilley had injected heroin in his presence around the end of March 1973 when she was still a counselor. He and Tina Ende both testified they had taken care of Faith from time to time during the summer of 1973. Ende also said that on one occasion the police brought Faith to her house because Faith did not know where her mother was.\nDolores Luchene testified Stilley had admitted using cocaine for the first time in October 1973. Testimony by Luchene and David Nolan showed that they cared for Faith during October 1973, while they were living together, and, on one occasion, Stilley had phoned them at midnight to ask them to pick Faith up at a bar or restaurant where Stilley had a prospect on the line. They said she indicated there was a lot of money at stake. Nolan added that Stilley had quit her iob as counselor in the fall of 1973.\nRochelle Stilley denied she was an addict at the time of Faith\u2019s temporary disappearance or that she had engaged in prostitution then. She said the last time she had any drug was on October 24, 1973, and that last drug was methadone; and that for the two years previous she had taken only methadone. She admitted she had been an addict and had engaged in acts of prostitution earlier but not during the time she had Faith. On the stand she stated she had been in the Tinley Park Mental Health Center for five days in September and again for five days in November of 1973. On the latter occasion she was hospitalized for a detoxification-related illness.\nWhile detoxifying from methadone during the fall of 1973, Stilley arranged to have a bus drop Faith off at the home of Rochelle Stilley\u2019s 86-year-old maternal grandmother, Mrs. Agnes Wolnik. It was from Mrs. Wolnik\u2019s home that Faith wandered before she was picked up by police. Rochelle Stilley stated that on the night of October 22, 1973, she went to Mrs. Wolnik\u2019s home and, upon not finding Faith there, assumed she was staying with relatives across the street from Mrs. Wolnik. She did not check. In the morning she contacted police.\nThe circuit court also heard testimony from a clinical psychologist who examined Faith two months prior to trial and found her to have \u201cinadequate parenting.\u201d Although Faith was bright, she was \u201canxious and infantile,\u201d the psychologist said. The psychologist admitted that placement in foster homes, as Faith had been, could have a disruptive effect on a child.\nPursuant to sections 2 \u2014 4 and 5 \u2014 7 of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 37, pars. 702 \u2014 4(1), 705 \u2014 7(1)), the circuit court of Cook County found Faith to be neglected and the parents to be unfit. Both parents waived the dispositional hearing. Faith was then placed under the guardianship of Richard Laymon, guardianship administrator of the Department of Children and Family Services. Further, the guardian was ordered not to place the child with either parent without court approval. On appeal, the appellate court, with a dissent, reversed the circuit court\u2019s decision and directed that Faith be returned to Rochelle Stilley. 37 Ill. App. 3d 193.\nUnder the Juvenile Court Act a child is neglected if his or her support, educational, medical or \u201cother remedial\u201d needs are not met or if the child\u2019s \u201cenvironment is injurious to his welfare.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 37, par. 702 \u2014 4(1).) Such determination of neglect is, of course, in the province of the circuit court, but it is not an easy determination. Necessarily, it varies with each case. In general, neglect \u201cis the failure to exercise the care that the circumstances justly demand. It embraces wilful as well as unintentional disregard of duty. \u201d (People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz (1952), 411 Ill. 618, 624.) But neglect \u201cis not a term of fixed and measured meaning. It takes its content always from specific circumstances, and its meaning varies as the context of surrounding circumstances changes.\u201d People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz (1952), 411 Ill. 618, 624.\nGiven the varying circumstances of neglect cases, the trial court must have broad discretion to reach a just determination. (Rodely v. Rodely (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 347, 350; People ex rel. Bukovich v. Bukovich (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 76, 83.) Only where there has been an abuse of discretion or the judgment has been against the manifest weight of the evidence should the decision be disturbed on appeal. The delicacy and difficulty of child-custody and child-neglect cases justify the burden of responsibility placed on the trial court and the ensuing deference which must be given to the trial court. The trial court has the opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of parties and witnesses. \u201cWe recognize *** that in viewing a judgment of a trial court respectful weight must be given the consideration that the trial court had the opportunity of observing the witnesses.\u201d (People ex rel. Edwards v. Livingston (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 201, 210.) \u201cThis is a vital factor in evaluating the correctness of [the trial judge\u2019s] determination. We should not disturb his findings unless they are palpably against the weight of the evidence.\u201d Giacopelli v. Florence Crittenton Home (1959), 16 Ill. 2d 556, 566-67.\nAlthough three of the cases cited above can be distinguished because they involved child-custody disputes arising after divorces, the essential policy consideration is the same as in the instant case: the best interests and welfare of the child. Indeed, this is the standard to be applied in child-neglect and custody cases. Giacopelli v. Florence Crittenton Home (1959), 16 Ill. 2d 556, People ex rel. Edwards v. Livingston (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 201. See also People ex rel. Noonan v. Wingate (1941), 376 Ill. 244, and Miezio v. Miezio (1955), 6 Ill. 2d 469.\nIn the case before us, the trial court found neglect (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 37, par. 702 \u2014 4) and then proceeded to a disposition under section 5 \u2014 2(l)(c) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 37, par. 705-2(l)(c)): \u201cA minor under 18 years of age found to be neglected under Section 2 \u2014 4 may be (1) continued in the custody of his parents, guardian or legal custodian, or (2) placed in accordance with Section 5 \u2014 7.\u201d (Section 5 \u2014 7 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 37, par. 705 \u2014 7) provides for the care and placement of a child once the court finds the parents unfit or unable to properly care for the child.) The temporary custody order of October 26, 1973, was vacated. Upon both parents\u2019 waiver of the dispositional hearing, the court appointed the guardianship administrator as the proper guardian of Faith. It also ordered the guardian not to give the child to either parent without leave of the court. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 37, par. 705-7(5).\nWe believe the disposition of the case by the circuit court was proper under the statutes and consistent with this court\u2019s holdings. The trial court\u2019s decision was not palpably erroneous, nor was it against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court was able to observe the parties and witnesses and found more credence in the testimony of the State\u2019s witnesses than in the testimony of the mother, Rochelle Stilley. Hence the finding of neglect and the deprivation of custody were correct. There is no evidence that the court failed to consider the child\u2019s welfare as its primary consideration. The court fulfilled its function and duty, \u201cas parens patriae, to protect those who have no other lawful protector\u201d and exercised its \u201cinherent power to deprive [the parents] of custody and appoint a suitable person to act as guardian.\u201d People ex rel. Ryan v. Sempek (1958), 12 Ill. 2d 581, 584.\nWe find nothing in the record to warrant a reversal of the circuit court. The judgment of the appellate court is reversed, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAppellate court reversed; circuit court affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE CLARK" } ], "attorneys": [ "William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (James B. Zagel and Jayne A. Carr, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, and Laurence J. Bolon and Kevin Sweeney, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.", "Joan D. Levin, of Chicago, for appellant Scott.", "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Frances G. Sowa and Marc Fogelberg, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 48536\nIn re FAITH A. STILLEY, a Minor.\u2014(The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Rochelle Stilley, Appellee, et al. (Augustus M. Scott, Appellant).)\nOpinion filed May 20, 1977.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (James B. Zagel and Jayne A. Carr, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, and Laurence J. Bolon and Kevin Sweeney, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.\nJoan D. Levin, of Chicago, for appellant Scott.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Frances G. Sowa and Marc Fogelberg, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0515-01", "first_page_order": 529, "last_page_order": 536 }