{
  "id": 5678068,
  "name": "In re K.M.B., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. K.M.B., Respondent-Appellant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. K.M.B.",
  "decision_date": "1984-04-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 4\u201483\u20140611",
  "first_page": "645",
  "last_page": "648",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "123 Ill. App. 3d 645"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "362 N.E.2d 1024",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Ill. 2d 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5465012
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "389"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/66/0385-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "387 U.S. 1",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11333627
      ],
      "weight": 6,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/387/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 459,
    "char_count": 7774,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.765,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7124003860544604e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7025836255318361
    },
    "sha256": "de2ae749d6e5c8d17a5cb934951a9aa91e44bd65f46b37faa0bfa93e3daa841d",
    "simhash": "1:8438570b49f1fd7d",
    "word_count": 1263
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:44:31.202001+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re K.M.B., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. K.M.B., Respondent-Appellant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MILLS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nK.M.B., a 13-year-old female, appeals the circuit court\u2019s order placing her in the Salem Children\u2019s Home. She contends that she was denied her constitutional right to counsel during the dispositional hearing.\nWe disagree and affirm.\nTHE FACTS\nOn October 1, 1982, K.M.B. was found to be delinquent and adjudicated a ward of the court. She was placed on probation for 24 months. On April 18, 1983, Judge Witte found that K.M.B. had wilfully violated the conditions of her probation and revoked her probation. Elizabeth Robb, an assistant public defender, served as K.M.B.\u2019s guardian ad litem throughout all of these proceedings.\nAt the dispositional hearing, Robb again appeared on behalf of K.M.B. Robb informed Judge Witte that K.M.B. had requested her to withdraw as counsel because \u2014 contrary to K.M.B.\u2019s wishes \u2014 Robb wanted to recommend that K.M.B. be placed in a juvenile home. K.M.B. wished to remain in her mother\u2019s home. K.M.B.\u2019s mother also asked Judge Witte to replace Robb as K.M.B.\u2019s counsel.\nJudge Witte replied that Robb was employed by the county as an attorney to represent K.M.B. and also to use her professional judgment to protect K.M.B.\u2019s best interest. Judge Witte stated:\n\u201cI have no reason to believe that Mrs. Robb would not help her client [K.M.B.] present all the information and all of her, and her position as to the best she may, and if she wants to make a different recommendation that\u2019s certainly her professional responsibility and obligation.\u201d\nJudge Witte refused to replace Robb as K.M.B.\u2019s counsel. He did, however, appoint counsel for K.M.B.\u2019s mother and father and continued the dispositional proceeding for a later hearing.\nAt the second dispositional hearing, the State introduced into evidence a predispositional hearing report of juvenile court officer Diane McKimmey. In her report, McKimmey evaluated K.M.B.\u2019s entire background including the condition of K.M.B.\u2019s mother\u2019s home. K.M.B.\u2019s mother is single and unemployed. She lives with three of her children \u2014 including K.M.B. \u2014 in Bloomington, supports herself and the children with Aid to Dependent Children payments, and receives no child support from K.M.B.\u2019s father.\nMcKimmey noted that DCFS had received numerous complaints concerning the mother\u2019s residence. Those complaints included: loud parties into the early morning hours, underage drinkers, the uncleanliness of the home, and the number of residents in the home who are not members of the mother\u2019s family. McKimmey expressed her concern that K.M.B.\u2019s mother did not provide an adequate parental role for K.M.B. McKimmey recommended that K.M.B. be placed in the Salem Children\u2019s Home.\nAt the end of the hearing, Robb told the court that K.M.B. desired to remain in her mother\u2019s home. Robb then continued:\n\u201cI don\u2019t think that there\u2019s any question that placement is necessary at this time. I think that this situation has just deteriorated to such a degree that to keep the Minor in this *** type of living situation *** we are doing an extreme disservice to her ***. I certainly believe that *** the factors which have caused the situation *** are certainly as a result of many, many factors, unemployment of [K.M.B.\u2019s mother], no support provided by [K.M.B.\u2019s father], having to deal with a number of children on a very little income, trying to work, provide, be a single parent, and deal with someone, with a child who has obviously some serious problems which affect her ability to learn and her ability to interact with other individuals, *** I don\u2019t think any person is to blame as much as the environment and economic situation are the cause and factor.\nI just don\u2019t see any other solution than placement *** in a very structured situation where there is a reinforcement of things taught in a school, in the living environment in order to try and address the deteriorating situation which is occurring in her home.\u201d\nJudge Witte then ordered Juvenile Court Services to assume guardianship of K.M.B. and to place her in the Salem Children\u2019s Home.\nTHE LAW\nOn appeal, K.M.B. argues that she was denied her constitutional right to counsel because her attorney, Robb, recommended placement outside of the home even though she, K.M.B., desired to stay in her mother\u2019s home. We cannot agree.\nThe seminal case on a minor\u2019s right to counsel is In re Gault (1967), 387 U.S. 1, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527, 87 S. Ct. 1428. In Gault, the United States Supreme Court found that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution requires that juveniles be represented by counsel during proceedings to determine delinquency.\nThe responsibility of the court-appointed juvenile counsel, however, is different than that of other court-appointed counsel. The juvenile counsel must not only protect the juvenile\u2019s legal rights but he must also recognize and recommend a disposition in the juvenile\u2019s best interest, even when the juvenile himself does not recognize those interests. As our supreme court stated in In re Beasley (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 385, 389, 362 N.E.2d 1024, 1026:\n\u201cAlthough such a proceeding [under the Juvenile Court Act] retains certain adversary characteristics, it is not in the usual sense an adversary proceeding, but it is one to be administered in a spirit of humane concern for and to promote the welfare of the minor as well as to serve the best interests of the community.\u201d\nThe United States Supreme Court in Gault explicitly recognized the unique role of the juvenile\u2019s counsel:\n\u201cRecognition of the right to counsel involves no necessary interference with the special purposes of juvenile court procedures; indeed, it seems that counsel can play an important role in the process of rehabilitation.\u201d In re Gault (1967), 387 U.S. 1, 38 n.64, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527, 552 n.64, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 1449 n.64.\nIt is not always possible for a juvenile\u2019s counsel to carry out his unique responsibility to protect the juvenile\u2019s best interest without alienating the juvenile. A delinquent juvenile\u2019s wishes are often not in his best interest. Although the juvenile\u2019s counsel should consider the juvenile\u2019s wishes and inform the court of those wishes, the counsel has an obligation to protect the juvenile\u2019s best interest. If protecting a juvenile\u2019s best interest requires that the counsel make a recommendation contrary to the juvenile\u2019s wishes, then the counsel has, as Judge Witte stated, a \u201cprofessional responsibility and obligation\u201d to make that recommendation.\nIn the present case, Robb did exactly that. She considered K.M.B.\u2019s wish to remain in her mother\u2019s home and she informed the court of K.M.B.\u2019s desire. Then after considering the juvenile court officer\u2019s report, Robb stated that in her opinion it was in K.M.B.\u2019s best interest to be placed in a structured home instead of remaining with her mother. Robb then recommended that K.M.B. be placed in the Salem Children\u2019s Home.\nRobb\u2019s recommendation did not deprive K.M.B. of her right to counsel. Instead, the record reveals that Robb\u2019s recommendation was based on her professional evaluation of K.M.B.\u2019s best interest and indicates to us not only that K.M.B. received counsel but that she received very conscientious counsel.\nAttorney Robb, in fact, is to be highly commended.\nAffirmed.\nTRAPP and MILLER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MILLS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Yuhas and Jeffrey D. Foust, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Ronald C. Dozier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Robert J. Biderman and Linda Welge, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re K.M.B., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. K.M.B., Respondent-Appellant).\nFourth District\nNo. 4 \u2014 83\u20140611\nOpinion filed April 24, 1984.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Jeffrey D. Foust, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nRonald C. Dozier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Robert J. Biderman and Linda Welge, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0645-01",
  "first_page_order": 667,
  "last_page_order": 670
}