{
  "id": 5254579,
  "name": "In re S.M., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Rebecca Hoffman, Respondent-Appellant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Hoffman",
  "decision_date": "1992-01-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 4-91-0270",
  "first_page": "543",
  "last_page": "549",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "223 Ill. App. 3d 543"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "529 N.E.2d 92",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "93-94"
        },
        {
          "page": "93-94"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 Ill. App. 3d 732",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3514678
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "734"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/174/0732-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "496 N.E.2d 1242",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1243"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 Ill. App. 3d 504",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3571076
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "507"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/146/0504-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "553 N.E.2d 85",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "86-87"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 Ill. App. 3d 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2489707
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "108-09"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/196/0107-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 513,
    "char_count": 11874,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.779,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.8970230461955775e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8447702935576553
    },
    "sha256": "630c4f9d8e016a022200a74f20987a16254d09139d84cf41750ba55bec00fb0b",
    "simhash": "1:0b6a2c966a4e1465",
    "word_count": 1990
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:46:44.574739+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re S.M., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Rebecca Hoffman, Respondent-Appellant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn July 1987, at a juvenile court dispositional hearing, the trial court adjudicated respondent minor, S.M. (born July 13, 1976), a ward of the court. The court based this adjudication upon its earlier finding that S.M. and his siblings were abused minors because their environment was injurious to their welfare when they resided with their respondent mother, Rebecca Hoffman. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 702 \u2014 4(2)(b).) The trial court also found that Hoffman was unable, for reasons other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train, or discipline S.M. and his siblings, and that reasonable and appropriate services had been unavailing in removing the circumstances that led to the court\u2019s finding. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 705-7(1).\nThe trial court entered a written dispositional order, which concluded as follows: \u201cThis court retains jurisdiction of this cause for the entry of such orders as may be necessary from time to time in the best interests of the respondent minors and justice.\u201d The court also set the case for the initial review of its dispositional order in late October 1987 (see Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 37, par. 705 \u2014 8(1)) and outlined in detail the steps Hoffman and S.M.\u2019s father would have to take in order to regain custody of S.M. and his siblings. The court then appointed the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) as S.M.\u2019s guardian, with the power to place S.M. After the July 1987 dispositional hearing, DCFS placed S.M. in a new home.\nBeginning in October 1987, the trial court conducted periodic reviews of its July 1987 dispositional order so as to determine what, if any, modifications thereof would be appropriate. At these review hearings, the court considered the behavior of the respondent parents since the previous review hearing and the effect, if any, of that behavior upon the best interests of the children. As a result of one such review hearing, conducted in July 1990, the trial court determined that custody of S.M. could be returned to Hoffman and so ordered.\nIn October 1990, the State filed a petition for change of custody, seeking to have the custody of S.M. removed from Hoffman, with authority to be given to DCFS to determine once again with whom S.M. should be placed. On the day the State filed that petition, the court conducted a shelter-care hearing, pursuant to a request therefor contained in the State\u2019s petition, and ordered S.M. temporarily removed from Hoffman\u2019s custody.\nIn November 1990, the court conducted a hearing on the State\u2019s petition for change of custody and granted it, finding again that Hoffman was unable for reasons other than financial circumstances alone to care for, protect, train, and discipline S.M. The court again indicated that DCFS, S.M.\u2019s guardian, should place S.M. out of his mother\u2019s home.\nHoffman appeals that order, arguing that (1) the State\u2019s October 1990 petition to change custody failed to state a sufficient cause of action, (2) the State failed to give Hoffman proper notice of the hearing on that petition, and (3) the State failed to show the presence of an immediate necessity for temporary custody, which formed the basis of the trial court\u2019s order pursuant to the petition.\nWe affirm.\nOn appeal, Hoffman first argues that the State\u2019s October 1990 petition for change of custody did not allege facts to put Hoffman on notice of the charges against which she had to defend. In support of this argument, Hoffman cites two decisions of this court, In re G.W.S. (1990), 196 Ill. App. 3d 107, 553 N.E.2d 85, and In re Harpman (1986), 146 Ill. App. 3d 504, 496 N.E.2d 1242. However, both of those cases are distinguishable because they involved the sufficiency of pleadings alleging either that the court should terminate parental rights (G.W.S., 196 Ill. App. 3d at 108-09, 553 N.E.2d at 86-87), or that the trial court should find a minor abused (Harpman, 146 Ill. App. 3d at 507, 496 N.E.2d at 1243).\nIn the present case, the court has already adjudicated the minor in question, S.M., an abused minor and made him a ward of the court. The only issue raised by the State\u2019s October 1990 petition to change custody was whether the trial court should again modify the dispositional order initially entered in July 1987 and periodically reviewed thereafter. We hold that the pleading requirements that apply to initial petitions for adjudication, seeking either a finding of abuse or a termination of parental rights, do not apply to petitions to modify dispositional orders, which is what the State\u2019s October 1990 petition should properly have been entitled.\nRegarding Hoffman\u2019s claim that \u201c[d]ue process requires that the [October 1990] petition *** set forth with particularity specific grounds,\u201d we hold that Hoffman received all the process she was due when that petition informed her that \u201cit is in the best interest of the public and [S.M.] that custody of [S.M.] be removed from [Hoffman] and placed with [DCFS].\u201d That allegation notified Hoffman of the focus of the hearing. Due process requires nothing more when the State seeks nothing more than a modification of a dispositional order.\nWe note that the State\u2019s October 1990 petition is somewhat difficult to understand procedurally. Because the State requested that S.M. be placed in shelter care, that petition sounded like a petition for finding of abuse, to be preceded by a shelter-care hearing conducted under section 2 \u2014 10 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 10). The State should have entitled its October 1990 petition as a petition to modify the dispositional order, and it should have made no reference to seeking shelter care. However, the sloppiness of the State\u2019s petition did not deprive Hoffman of notice because the substance of the petition made clear the State\u2019s intent to seek to modify the dispositional order.\nSection 2 \u2014 28 of the Act governs court proceedings to review dispositional orders. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 28.) Section 2 \u2014 28(3) reads as follows:\n\u201cThe minor or any person interested in the minor may apply to the court for a change in custody of the minor and the appointment of a new custodian or guardian of the person or for the restoration of the minor to the custody of his parents or former guardian or custodian.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 28(3).)\nPetitions brought pursuant to that section, such as the petition in the present case, do not implicate the same procedural requirements applicable to petitions filed for relief under the Act prior to adjudicatory hearings, which are conducted under section 2 \u2014 21. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 21.) Hearings conducted under section 2 \u2014 28(3) of the Act are simply further dispositional hearings, conducted in accordance with section 2 \u2014 22(1) of the Act, which governs how dispositional hearings are to be held. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 37, pars. 802 \u2014 28(3), 802 \u2014 22(1).) The rules of evidence that apply to dispositional hearings conducted under section 2 \u2014 22(1) also apply to hearings conducted on petitions filed seeking relief under section 2 \u2014 28(3).\nAlso, just as the court at the dispositional hearing conducted under section 2 \u2014 22(1) of the Act \u201cshall determine the proper disposition best serving the interests of the minor and the public,\u201d so should a court, hearing a petition brought under section 2 \u2014 28(3), \u201cdetermine the proper disposition best serving the interests of the minor and the public.\u201d The court\u2019s determination is the same in each instance, with the matter of the \u201cproper disposition best serving the interests of the minor and the public\u201d being left to the sound discretion of the trial court. On appeal, the trial court\u2019s exercise of that discretion will not be reversed unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re J.K.F. (1988), 174 Ill. App. 3d 732, 734, 529 N.E.2d 92, 93-94.\nHoffman next argues that the State\u2019s October 1990 petition for change of custody failed to comply with the 10-day notice requirement of section 2 \u2014 28(2) of the Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 28(2).) That section requires, in part, that every agency having guardianship of a child file a supplemental petition for court review every 18 months, stating facts relative to the child\u2019s condition. That section further requires that the petition be set for hearing and that the clerk shall give 10 days\u2019 notice of the hearing by certified mail to various interested parties, including the respondent parents. Clearly, the routine reviews of the guardian\u2019s stewardship of the court\u2019s wards mandated by section 2 \u2014 28(2) differ from proceedings brought under section 2 \u2014 28(3) as a result of a petition by \u201cany person interested in the minor\u201d seeking a change in the minor\u2019s dispositional order. We hold that the 10-day notice provision of section 2 \u2014 28(2) of the Act does not apply to proceedings conducted under section 2 \u2014 28(3) of the Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 37, pars. 802 \u2014 28(2), (3).\nHoffman last argues that the trial court erred by temporarily changing S.M.\u2019s custody on the date the State filed its October 1990 petition for a change of custody because the State presented no evidence showing \u201cany immediate necessity\u201d for the court to enter that order. However, the court did not need to make such a finding in order to temporarily modify a dispositional order pursuant to a petition brought under section 2 \u2014 28(3) of the Act. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 28(3).) A finding that \u201cit is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of the minor\u201d that the trial court place him in a shelter-care facility is only required at shelter-care hearings conducted under section 2 \u2014 10 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 10), i.e., those occurring prior to any formal finding or adjudication of abuse or wardship. The trial court probably made the finding that it did \u2014 that it was a matter of immediate and urgent necessity that a temporary custodian be appointed for S.M.\u2014 because the State erroneously requested that action in its October 1990 petition. However, this court will not reverse the trial court\u2019s order on the basis that the State provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that the trial court did not have to make.\nThe issue before the trial court in November 1990, when it conducted the formal hearing on the State\u2019s October 1990 petition for a change of custody, was whether the best interests of the minor and the public required the court to modify its previously entered dispositional order. The trial court found the evidence sufficient and so ordered. The evidence presented at that hearing clearly demonstrated that Hoffman, while living in Tennessee, had essentially abandoned S.M. to the care and custody of her 18-year-old daughter, then living in Urbana, Illinois. Based upon this evidence, the trial court properly exercised its discretion (see J.K.F., 174 Ill. App. at 734, 529 N.E.2d at 93-94) in modifying its previous dispositional order by removing S.M. from Hoffman\u2019s custody and placing him with a custodian to be determined by his guardian, DCFS.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nGREEN, P.J., and McCULLOUGH, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lynne R. Feldman, of Pavia & Marsh, of Urbana, for appellant.",
      "Thomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Timothy J. Londrigan, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re S.M., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Rebecca Hoffman, Respondent-Appellant).\nFourth District\nNo. 4 \u2014 91\u20140270\nOpinion filed January 16, 1992.\nRehearing denied February 13,1992.\nLynne R. Feldman, of Pavia & Marsh, of Urbana, for appellant.\nThomas J. Difanis, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Timothy J. Londrigan, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0543-01",
  "first_page_order": 567,
  "last_page_order": 573
}