{
  "id": 2474836,
  "name": "In re J.P.S., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Elizabeth Strode, Respondent-Appellant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Strode",
  "decision_date": "1990-05-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201489\u20140232",
  "first_page": "633",
  "last_page": "636",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 3d 633"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "347 N.E.2d 474",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "478"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. App. 3d 95",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2805109
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "100-01"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/38/0095-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N.E.2d 295",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. 2d 581",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2779011
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/12/0581-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "422 N.E.2d 263",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill. App. 3d 1104",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        12146638
      ],
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/96/1104-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 446,
    "char_count": 7542,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.743,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.422395360974523e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5164857101707474
    },
    "sha256": "dbcdf2d8ac65b5adb85ef361298afe56375af5b25f484aabedf143802a5b11df",
    "simhash": "1:b0ee254628c3eef1",
    "word_count": 1263
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:28.995518+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re J.P.S., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Elizabeth Strode, Respondent-Appellant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE BARRY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRespondent Elizabeth Strode appeals from orders of the circuit of McDonough County adjudicating her to be an unfit parent and terminating the parental rights to her son, J.P.S.\nThe record reveals the following information. On May 25, 1987, J.P.S. was born to the respondent. On July 23, 1987, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a report alleging child abuse. An investigation into this report eventually resulted in a DCFS determination that the allegation was \u201cunfounded.\u201d However, on August 11, 1987, during the course of the DCFS investigation, the McDonough County State\u2019s Attorney filed a petition alleging J.P.S. to be an abused minor. At a hearing in September 1987, J.P.S. was adjudicated to be abused. On November 18, 1987, J.P.S. was ordered to the custody of the DCFS. Respondent was ordered to undergo counselling and was allowed to visit her son.\nOn December 2, 1988, the State\u2019s Attorney filed a supplemental petition to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights on the ground that she was an unfit parent. On February 9 and March 15, 1989, hearings were held on the petition. The court entered orders on March 27 and 28, 1989, finding respondent unfit and terminating her parental rights and appointing the DCFS as guardian with authority to consent to adoption.\nRespondent raises three issues on appeal. First, she contends that the trial judge\u2019s finding of unfitness was erroneous as a matter of law. Specifically, respondent alleges that the State\u2019s supplementary petition fails to state a cause of action and that the trial court misapplied the law then in effect.\nThis issue was not raised at trial. Generally, defects in the pleadings should be raised at trial so that they may be remedied or the defects are waived. (In re Dragoo (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 1104, 422 N.E.2d 263; People ex rel. Ryan v. Sempek (1958), 12 Ill. 2d 581, 147 N.E.2d 295.) In this case, however, a substantial question is raised as to whether the supplementary petition states a cause of action. As such, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 366 (107 Ill. 2d R. 366(b)(1)(i)) provides that \u201c[a]ny error of law affecting the judgment or order appealed from may be brought up for review.\u201d We choose to exercise our discretion under this rule to review this significant question.\nAt the time that this case was tried, the statutory provisions under which the State proceeded did not provide the same adoption opportunity for the abused child as they did for neglected and dependent children. Specifically, section 2 \u2014 29 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 authorizes the court to appoint a guardian with authority to consent to a child\u2019s adoption upon a finding \u201cthat a non-consenting parent is an unfit person as defined in Section 1 of \u2018An Act in relation to the adoption of persons, and to repeal an Act therein named,\u2019 approved July 17, 1959, as amended.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 802\u201429(2).) The latter act is contained in chapter 40 of the Illinois Revised Statutes. There, an \u201cunfit person\u201d is defined as one unfit to have a child on any one or more of 16 grounds ranging from abandonment to mental retardation. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 40, par. 1501(D) (as amended by Pub. Act 85\u20141440, art. II, \u00a72\u201454, eff. Feb. 1, 1989).\nThe State\u2019s supplemental petition to terminate parental rights in this case was filed on the ground that J.P.S. had been adjudicated abused and that respondent had failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of the child or to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child within 12 months. At the time of these proceedings, the statutory ground of unfitness referred to by the State\u2019s petition was \u201cfailure by a parent to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of the child from such parent, or to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to such parent within 12 months after an adjudication of neglected minor or dependent minor under the Juvenile Court Act or the Juvenile Court Act of 1987.\u201d (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1988 Supp., ch. 40, par. 1501(D)(m).) Effective September 1, 1989, five months after the court entered its dispositional order here, the legislature amended section 1(D)(m) by adding \u201cabused minor\u201d to the above underscored language. This legislation cannot, however, save the order in this case.\nIn In re Jankowski (1976), 38 Ill. App. 3d 95, 347 N.E.2d 474, the court considered respondent\u2019s challenge to a finding of unfitness under former section 1(D)(l) of the Adoption Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 4, par. 9.1\u20141), which defined an \u201cunfit person\u201d as one unfit to have a child on the ground, inter alia, of \u201c[fjailure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of the child from his parents or to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to his parents within twenty-four months after an adjudication of neglect under Section 2 \u2014 4 of the Juvenile Court Act.\u201d (Emphasis added.) The child in Jankowski had been adjudicated dependent, but not neglected. On review, the court reversed the trial court\u2019s order terminating the respondent mother\u2019s parental rights because the statute, by its plain and unambiguous terms, applied only to children adjudicated neglected. The court expressly rejected the State\u2019s argument that \u201cneglect\u201d and \u201cdependency\u201d could be equated to save the order there on appeal. 38 Ill. App. 3d at 100-01, 347 N.E.2d at 478.\nIn this case, the State similarly argues that the legislature could not have intended abused children to remain in limbo while similarly situated neglected and dependent children become available for adoption under section 1(d)(m). To subscribe to the State\u2019s position we would have to find that \u201cabuse\u201d is subsumed within \u201cneglect\u201d and/or \u201cdependency.\u201d Obviously, the legislature did not intend these concepts to be used interchangeably. The terms are separately defined in sections 2\u20143 and 2\u20144 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, pars. 802\u20143, 802\u20144). While section 1(D)(m) may have been left unchanged inadvertently when the legislature made substantial revisions in chapters 37 and 40 so as to include abused children within the protections of the Juvenile Court Act, it was clearly the purview of the legislature to amend section 1(D)(m) as well. Unfortunately for J.P.S., the legislature acted too late to validate these proceedings.\nUndoubtedly, the State will proceed anew under amended section 1(D)(m); however, that fact alone does not moot the issue before us. We are constrained to hold that the State\u2019s petition failed to state a valid cause for terminating respondent\u2019s parental rights and that the orders of the circuit court finding respondent unfit and terminating her parental rights must be reversed. As such, we deem it unnecessary to rule upon the remaining issues presented in this appeal.\nThe judgment of the circuit court is reversed.\nReversed.\nSCOTT and STOUDER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE BARRY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John A. Carter, Assistant Public Defender, of Macomb, for appellant.",
      "William Poncin, State\u2019s Attorney, of Macomb (Rita Kennedy Mertel, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.",
      "Joseph McRaven, of Macomb, guardian ad litem."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re J.P.S., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Elizabeth Strode, Respondent-Appellant).\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201489\u20140232\nOpinion filed May 22, 1990.\nJohn A. Carter, Assistant Public Defender, of Macomb, for appellant.\nWilliam Poncin, State\u2019s Attorney, of Macomb (Rita Kennedy Mertel, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.\nJoseph McRaven, of Macomb, guardian ad litem."
  },
  "file_name": "0633-01",
  "first_page_order": 655,
  "last_page_order": 658
}