{
  "id": 3472083,
  "name": "In re L.C.C., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. L.C.C., Respondent-Appellant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. L.C.C.",
  "decision_date": "1988-03-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 4-87-0415",
  "first_page": "670",
  "last_page": "674",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "167 Ill. App. 3d 670"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "429 N.E.2d 501",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 Ill. 2d 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3031635
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/87/0056-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "485 N.E.2d 848",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 Ill. 2d 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3125654
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/109/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "442 N.E.2d 961",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 Ill. App. 3d 695",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3000419
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/110/0695-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 404,
    "char_count": 6925,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.766,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8897128562361287e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7288446160374601
    },
    "sha256": "6c5c4e6a4c4feb79441c83ee4c46b7cdd5eadc2925edd29c008dc1d5bbfa83d2",
    "simhash": "1:7962541cd8328791",
    "word_count": 1130
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:28:30.258145+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re L.C.C., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. L.C.C., Respondent-Appellant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE KNECHT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn May 12, 1987, the Macon County circuit court adjudicated the minor respondent delinquent based on one count of attempt (robbery), one count of aggravated battery, and illegal consumption of alcohol. Respondent was ordered to serve three days in detention, perform 90 hours of community service, and placed on six months\u2019 probation. On appeal, respondent contends he was denied due process where the State failed to give notice of the delinquency proceedings to the noncustodial father. He requests the court vacate the orders against him and remand the cause for new proceedings. We affirm.\nOn the evening of November 29, 1986, a Decatur police officer arrested the respondent and took him into custody. Respondent\u2019s mother was notified of her son\u2019s arrest and went to the station. At the station, Decatur juvenile officer Diane Beggs interviewed the respondent and the mother sat through the interview with her son. The respondent\u2019s noncustodial father also came to the station near the end of the interrogation. It is not known how he knew his son was in custody.\nThe minor and his mother were served with summons on January 7, 1987. The State did not serve the minor\u2019s father personally, by certified mail, or by publication. His address was listed as unknown in the petition. A probation department report indicated the father may have been incarcerated in the Macon County jail. The mother was present at the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings; the father was not.\nThe issue presented is whether due process was violated where the State failed to serve the noncustodial father by summons, certified mail or publication either before the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings, where the noncustodial father appeared at the police station during his son\u2019s interrogation prior to the filing of the delinquency petition.\nA person named as a respondent in a petition is required to be served with summons. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 704 \u2014 3.) If the person\u2019s address is unknown, service should be made by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the particular county. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 704 \u2014 4(2).) Yet notice by publication is not necessary if the minor\u2019s legal custodian has already been served personally or by certified mail. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 704 \u2014 4(2).) In this case the noncustodial father was named as a respondent, and his address was unknown. Service by publication was not necessary because the legal custodian, the mother, was served with summons personally.\nNoncustodial parents should be served personally or by mail whenever possible, but notice to the custodial parent is what is crucial. (In re S.W.C. (1982), 110 Ill. App. 3d 695, 442 N.E.2d 961.) Here the respondent\u2019s mother is the custodial parent and she was properly notified.\nThe Illinois Supreme Court has held that where a minor fails to question the State\u2019s diligence in locating the noncustodial parent at trial, the matter is waived for purposes of appeal. (In re J.P.J. (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 129, 485 N.E.2d 848.) We agree. Minors should not remain silent at trial and then complain later about inadequate notice. At no time during the proceedings did the respondent, his mother, or his attorney question the State\u2019s diligence in ascertaining the whereabouts of the father.\nThe respondent contends his father should have been notified because he appeared at the police station prior to the filing of the delinquency petition. He claims the State was not diligent in identifying where his father lived because it failed to get his address when he appeared at the station. He further claims the father\u2019s appearance reveals an interest in him as a son, their significant relationship, and potential assistance or protection the father might have provided.\nThe State must exercise diligence in summoning a noncustodial parent, especially when the identity or whereabouts of the person is unknown. (J.P.J., 109 Ill. 2d 129, 485 N.E.2d 848.) The father\u2019s name was provided, as well as information regarding his possible incarceration. The State failed to follow up on this information to locate the father and serve him. The State should have obtained the address when the father was at the station.\nThe State should not fail to notify people or obtain addresses simply because section 4 \u2014 4(2) requires that only the legal custodian be notified. Notifying a parent who has demonstrated interest is important and necessary to proceedings dealing with the welfare and future of a minor.\nDespite the lack of initiative demonstrated by the State, we are not convinced the respondent\u2019s due process rights were violated. While the father\u2019s appearance shows an interest in the minor, there is no showing of a significant relationship between he and his father. The respondent knows who his father is, but does not know his address. His parents are divorced and it is not clear he had much contact with the father. Inadequate notice to a father does not deprive a minor of due process where they did not have a significant relationship. In re J.W. (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 56, 429 N.E.2d 501.\nFurther, there is no evidence of any potential assistance or protection the father could have provided. He was not present for the full interrogation. The record does not indicate the topic of conversation between the father and the juvenile officer. The respondent does not point to any potential assistance he was denied.\nThe objectives of the Juvenile Court Act (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 701 \u2014 1 et seq.) are more likely to be met where parental concern is encouraged. Here, the State ignored parental concern. The issue could be disposed of by waiver, but we choose to address the merits. We find the failure to serve the noncustodial father did not violate respondent\u2019s due process rights. The father is not an indispensable party. There is no evidence his absence denied the minor additional assistance or protection. The respondent in no way established a significant relationship. An increasing number of cases suggest the State is inattentive to the notice requirements of the Act. Those requirements should not be ignored in the future.\nWe affirm the circuit court\u2019s order that the respondent serve three days\u2019 detention, perform 90 hours of community service, and be placed on six months\u2019 probation.\nAffirmed.\nGREEN, P.J., and SPITZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE KNECHT"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Yuhas and Allen H. Andrews, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Jeffrey K. Davison, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and David Mannchen, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re L.C.C., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. L.C.C., Respondent-Appellant).\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201487\u20140415\nOpinion filed March 31, 1988.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Allen H. Andrews, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nJeffrey K. Davison, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and David Mannchen, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0670-01",
  "first_page_order": 692,
  "last_page_order": 696
}