{ "id": 2664969, "name": "In re D.L.W. (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. D.L.W., Respondent-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. D.L.W.", "decision_date": "1989-08-24", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201488\u20140479", "first_page": "566", "last_page": "572", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "187 Ill. App. 3d 566" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "532 N.E.2d 549", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "551" }, { "page": "551" }, { "page": "552" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 Ill. App. 3d 733", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3622149 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "736" }, { "page": "735-36" }, { "page": "736-37" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/177/0733-01" ] }, { "cite": "463 N.E.2d 1023", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1024" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 Ill. App. 3d 1036", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5679365 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1037" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/123/1036-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 598, "char_count": 14617, "ocr_confidence": 0.778, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1315214750103543e-07, "percentile": 0.5759550074154902 }, "sha256": "c4d38e1bc68375b04dfa7d5ae80d810161af736cf332ef00999cb1128a384a08", "simhash": "1:1dc256d461c02813", "word_count": 2442 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:20:22.173562+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re D.L.W. (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. D.L.W., Respondent-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE SPITZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe respondent minor, bom January 21, 1973, had been adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation. Thereafter, pursuant to proceedings on a petition to revoke his probation, the probation was revoked and he was committed to the Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division (DOC). This appeal followed.\nThis is another case wherein the sole issue on appeal is the failure to give statutorily required notice to a parent in a delinquency proceeding arising under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 801 \u2014 1 et seq.). Section 5 \u2014 25(6) of the Act states: \u201cDisposition after revocation of probation or of conditional discharge shall be under section 5 \u2014 22.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 805 \u2014 25(6), formerly Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 705 \u2014 3(8) (referring to the notice requirements of section 5 \u2014 1).) Section 5 \u2014 22(2) provides in part: \u201cNotice in compliance with Sections 5 \u2014 15 and 5 \u2014 16 must be given to all parties-respondents prior to proceeding to a dispositional hearing.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 805 \u2014 22(2) (formerly Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 705 \u2014 1(2) (referring to notice in compliance with sections 4 \u2014 3 and 4 \u2014 4)).) Under sections 5 \u2014 15 and 5 \u2014 16, notice by personal or substitute service is preferred, but where such service cannot be obtained for any of the listed statutory reasons, notice by certified mail or by publication is sufficient. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, pars. 805 \u2014 15, 805 \u2014 16 (formerly Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, pars. 704 \u2014 3, 704 \u2014 4).) Of particular note to the issue raised in this case is the provision on service of summons, set forth in section 5 \u2014 15(5) of the Act, which provides:\n\u201cService of a summons and petition shall be made by: (a) leaving a copy thereof with the person summoned at least 3 days before the time stated therein for appearance; (b) leaving a copy at his usual place of abode with some person of the family, of the age of 10 years or upwards, and informing that person of the contents thereof, provided the officer or other person making service shall also send a copy of the summons in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed to the person summoned at his usual place of abode, at least 3 days before the time stated therein for appearance-, or (c) leaving a copy thereof with the guardian or custodian of a minor, at least 3 days before the time stated therein for appearance.\u201d (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 805 \u2014 15(5) (formerly Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 704 \u2014 3(5)).)\nSimilar notice requirements adhere when a delinquency petition or supplemental petition is filed, and section 5 \u2014 15 further provides in pertinent part:\n\u201c(1) When a petition is filed, the clerk of the court shall issue a summons with a copy of the petition attached. The summons shall be directed to the minor\u2019s legal guardian or custodian and to each person named as a respondent in the petition.\n***\n(3) The summons shall be issued under the seal of the court, attested in and signed with the name of the clerk of the court, dated on the day it is issued, and shall require each respondent to appear and answer the petition on the date set for the adjudicatory hearing.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 805 \u2014 15 (formerly Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 704 \u2014 3).)\nThe type of notice required under the Act is clear, as is the legislative intent that notice be given prior to proceeding with the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings. Further, this court has stated the statutory provisions regarding notice are mandatory (In re J.W.M. (1984), 123 Ill. App. 3d 1036, 1037, 463 N.E.2d 1023, 1024) and failure to comply with statutory notice provisions may constitute reversible error. (In re J.I.D. (1988), 177 Ill. App. 3d 733, 736, 532 N.E.2d 549, 551.) With these precepts in mind, we consider the record before us in this appeal.\nOn January 5, 1987, a juvenile petition was filed alleging D.L.W. was a delinquent minor by reason of having committed the offenses of burglary, misdemeanor theft, and felony criminal damage to property. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, pars. 19 \u2014 1, 16 \u2014 1(e)(1), 21 \u2014 1(a).) All offenses involved the break-in and theft from the Lincoln Avenue Mobile station in Urbana, Illinois. On January 8, 1987, a return of summons was filed in the circuit court, showing the minor and his mother and father, with whom he resided, had been notified that a hearing in the case would be held on February 4,1987.\nOn January 27, 1987, a supplemental delinquency petition was filed against D.L.W., alleging he had committed the offenses of residential burglary and felony theft. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, pars. 19 \u2014 3, 16 \u2014 1(e)(1).) Upon filing the supplemental delinquency petition, the original January 5 delinquency petition was withdrawn and dismissed by the State.\nOn January 30, 1987, another return of summons was filed with the circuit court, showing the minor and his parents had been given notice to appear at a hearing on the delinquency petition on February 4,1987.\nOn February 4, 1987, an admonition hearing was conducted. The minor and his mother appeared personally, and counsel was appointed for the respondent minor. During the hearing, the trial court set the date of February 25, 1987, for the minor\u2019s adjudicatory hearing. The minor\u2019s father did not appear at the admonition hearing, nor did he receive formal notice of the adjudicatory hearing.\nOn February 9, 1987, based on a potential conflict of interest in the appointment of the public defender to represent the minor, the appointment was vacated and another attorney was appointed counsel for the minor and notified of the appointment.\nOn February 25, 1987, an adjudicatory hearing was conducted on the supplemental delinquency petition. The minor and his mother appeared personally and the minor was represented by counsel. The minor entered an admission to the charge of residential burglary and the theft count was withdrawn and dismissed by the State. The court accepted the admission and stipulation and, at the conclusion of the hearing, set the date of March 31, 1987, for the dispositional hearing. The minor\u2019s father did not appear at the adjudicatory hearing, nor did he receive formal notice of the dispositional hearing.\nOn March 31, 1987, a second supplemental delinquency petition was filed, alleging D.L.W. had been involved in a residential burglary on March 29,1987. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 19 \u2014 3.\nAt hearing on March 31, 1987, the minor appeared personally and with counsel. The minor\u2019s mother appeared personally, and a representative of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) made an appearance, as did a probation officer from the Court Services Department. The cause was continued to April 14, 1987, and the minor was detained pending that hearing.\nOn April 7, 1987, a return of summons was filed in the circuit court, showing the minor and his parents had been notified of the dispositional hearing scheduled for April 14.\nOn April 14, 1987, a dispositional hearing was conducted. The respondent minor appeared personally and with counsel. The minor\u2019s mother appeared personally, as did a probation officer from the Court Services Department, a representative of DCFS, and a representative of CAR The minor was ordered to serve an 18-month term of probation, including as conditions that the minor cooperate with all placement alternatives imposed by DCFS and serve a five-day period of detention set to commence on November 25, 1987. The State also dismissed the second supplemental delinquency petition filed March 31, 1987. D.L.W.\u2019s father did not appear at the dispositional hearing.\nOn April 22, 1988, a petition to revoke D.L.W.\u2019s probation was filed in the circuit court, alleging the minor had not conformed to the conditions of probation in that he was involved in a felony theft when, on April 20, 1988, he took a 1983 Chevrolet Citation belonging to the Edgar County Children\u2019s Home. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 16 \u2014 l(e)(3).) A warrant of apprehension issued against the minor and was executed the same day, with D.L.W. delivered to the Champaign County Youth Detention Center.\nOn April 25, 1988, a hearing was conducted on the State\u2019s petition to revoke the minor\u2019s probation. Prior to the hearing, no formal notice had been obtained on the minor or his parents. However, the minor appeared personally, as did his mother, along with a representative of the Court Services Department and a representative of DCFS. A public defender was appointed and appeared. The court conducted a detention hearing and issued an order for temporary detention. During the hearing, the court set May 3, 1988, as the date for the adjudicatory hearing.\nOn May 3, 1988, the minor appeared personally and with counsel. The minor\u2019s mother appeared personally, as did a representative of DCFS. The minor was admonished and admitted and stipulated to the factual allegations of the petition to revoke probation. During the hearing, the court set the date of June 10, 1988, for the minor\u2019s dis-positional hearing. The minor\u2019s father was not present at the adjudicatory hearing, nor was he given formal notice of the dispositional hearing date.\nFor reasons not apparent from the record, the dispositional hearing was evidently reset for June 6, 1988. The record shows no formal notice given to the minor or his parents as to the rescheduled date for the dispositional hearing. On June 6, 1988, the cause was called for dispositional hearing. Counsel for respondent appeared, and the minor\u2019s mother appeared personally, as did a probation officer from the Court Services Department, a representative of CCH, and a representative of DCFS. The minor did not appear personally and a warrant of apprehension was issued for the minor.\nOn Tuesday, June 28, 1988, the minor was taken into custody by the Champaign County juvenile authorities and placed at the Champaign County Youth Detention Center.\nOn Wednesday, June 29, 1988, the cause was called for dispositional hearing. The minor appeared personally and with counsel. No formal service had been obtained on the minor or his parents. Neither of the respondent\u2019s parents appeared, although there were appearances by a representative of DCFS and the probation officer on behalf of the Court Services Department. The trial judge inquired as to whether the minor\u2019s parents had been notified of this new date and time for hearing. The probation officer indicated she was not aware of any notification of the parents, and the detention officer indicated to the judge that the minor\u2019s mother had been notified, at 9:25 a.m. that morning, that the minor\u2019s hearing was set for that afternoon. The trial judge stated on the record:\n\u201cTHE COURT: We are now talking 4:00, and this matter was set for around 2:45, 3:00, and was delayed, because I have been advised that [the minor] fled the custody of the Court Services officers upon being unhandcuffed at the time he was being brought into this courtroom, and had to be pursued, is that correct?\nDETENTION OFFICER: That is correct, Your Honor.\nTHE COURT: And, while subsequently apprehended we lost our time slot, and that\u2019s why he appears in handcuffs in court now *** and *** we are about an hour and some late on proceedings [from] where we were before. I mention all of this, because it appears to me that had the [respondent mother or respondent father], if they had any intent of being present this afternoon, they could have come by this point, since they live, I think, less than two miles away and I have not been contacted. Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone else been contacted by them saying they intend to come but were unable to do so, or had encountered some difficulty.\u201d\nThe court ascertained that neither the prosecutor nor the probation officer had heard from the parents. The detention officer indicated the respondent\u2019s mother had not indicated whether she intended to attend. The court thereupon ascertained that at the time the admission and stipulation were entered, the parties agreed to abide by the recommendations of the Court Services Department. The probation officer\u2019s dispositional report recommended D.L.W.\u2019s commitment to DOC. After argument of counsel, the court allowed the petition to revoke the minor\u2019s probation and ordered D.L.W. committed to DOC.\nOn appeal, counsel for the respondent minor argues the phone call made by the detention officer on the morning of dispositional hearing is not notification sufficient to meet the requirements of the Act, relying on this court\u2019s decision in J.I.D., which stated:\n\u201cSection 2 \u2014 22(2) of the Act prescribes the notice which must be given, and that requirement was not met here. At least under the circumstances here, where parents were not notified of the date of the dispositional hearing at a hearing they previously attended or were not notified of or did not attend a previous hearing which was part of a chain of proceedings, each of which was set at the previous hearing and which culminated in the dispositional hearing, we hold the failure of the State to give section 2 \u2014 22(2) notice to a parent showing sufficient interest in a minor to be reversible error.\u201d (Emphasis in original.) (J.I.D., 177 Ill. App. 3d at 735-36, 532 N.E.2d at 551.)\nAnd further:\n\u201cLittle purpose is served by the statutory notice requirement if it is deemed to be merely directory without any sanction for noncompliance.\u201d (Emphasis added.) (J.I.D., 177 Ill. App. 3d at 736-37, 532 N.E.2d at 552.)\nThe State concedes reversible error occurred here. We agree. If the protections of the Act are to have any meaning whatsoever, they must be given effect during the proceedings in the circuit court and are not to be ignored simply because it is expedient to do so.\nAccordingly, for the reasons herein stated, the orders revoking the minor\u2019s probation and committing him to DOC must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nLUND and KNECHT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE SPITZ" } ], "attorneys": [ "Daniel D. Yuhas, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.", "Thomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and David E. Mannchen, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re D.L.W. (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. D.L.W., Respondent-Appellant).\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201488\u20140479\nOpinion filed August 24, 1989.\nDaniel D. Yuhas, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nThomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and David E. Mannchen, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0566-01", "first_page_order": 592, "last_page_order": 598 }