{ "id": 182739, "name": "In re R.M., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Verline M., Respondent-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Verline M.", "decision_date": "1996-09-17", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201495\u20142711", "first_page": "469", "last_page": "472", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "283 Ill. App. 3d 469" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "465 N.E.2d 133", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 Ill. App. 3d 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3633219 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "311" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/125/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "531 N.E.2d 347", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 Ill. 2d 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5554757 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "265" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/125/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "638 N.E.2d 368", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 Ill. App. 3d 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 872589 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "424" }, { "page": "425" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/265/0419-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 408, "char_count": 6717, "ocr_confidence": 0.777, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.911750273116247e-08, "percentile": 0.5358053693477882 }, "sha256": "cf31df8c993c9ffb36bca67e6c98b08371e95ccc0ff9c700bc97c9b06a375689", "simhash": "1:831c0fda1cb5c8bd", "word_count": 1128 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:33.654874+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re R.M., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Verline M., Respondent-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HARTMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRespondent, Verline M., the mother of the minor, R.M., appeals from an order of the circuit court placing R.M. in the custody of the guardianship administrator of the Department of Children and Earnily Services (DCFS). On appeal, respondent contends that: (1) the court\u2019s finding of neglect was manifestly erroneous; and (2) the court\u2019s failure to place in writing the factual basis for its finding at the dispositional hearing contravenes the requirement set forth in section 2\u201427 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (the Act) (705 ILCS 405/ 2\u201427(1) (West 1994)) and, therefore, the finding must be vacated.\nOn May 25, 1994, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship on behalf of R.M. alleging that he was neglected and abused. After a temporary custody hearing, the court determined that probable cause existed that R.M. was neglected and should be removed from his mother\u2019s custody. At the adjudicatory hearing, police officer Eileen Daly testified that R.M. had been abandoned at a police station on the morning of May 22, 1994. Respondent\u2019s father telephoned the police after he saw R.M.\u2019s picture on television. Officer Daly questioned respondent\u2019s father, who told her that he was watching R.M. because respondent was in the hospital, but he then allowed his girlfriend, Yolanda Kemp, to take R.M. Respondent\u2019s father would not explain why he gave R.M. to Kemp because he did not want to get Kemp in trouble. Officer Daly then questioned respondent, who stated that she left R.M. with her father and that Kemp had telephoned her at the hospital demanding money for babysitting. After respondent told Kemp she did not have any money, Kemp hung up the telephone and subsequently left R.M. at the police station. Respondent denied giving Kemp permission to take R.M. Respondent was not present at the adjudicatory hearing although she had been present at the temporary custody hearing. The court made a finding of neglect for lack of care pursuant to section 2\u20143(1)(a) of the Act. 705 ILCS 405/2\u20143(1)(a) (West 1994).\nAt the dispositional hearing, Gerald Austin, the DCFS worker assigned to R.M.\u2019s case, testified that R.M. had been placed in his aunt\u2019s home, which was suitable. Respondent had had 10 children; all 10 children had been removed from respondent\u2019s care before they were five years old. Six of the children have been adopted and the remaining four are in the custody of DCFS. Respondent, who failed to complete required parenting classes and drug treatment, told Austin that she had been recently released from prison and was still taking drugs. Respondent wanted her sister to care for R.M. Neither Austin nor respondent\u2019s attorney was able to notify respondent of the dispositional hearing because they could not locate her. The court found that it was in the best interests of R.M. to be adjudicated a ward of the court because respondent was unable and unwilling to care for him.\nRespondent initially contends the court\u2019s determination that R.M. was neglected was against the manifest weight of the evidence because respondent was unaware that her father would give R.M. to his girlfriend.\nSection 2\u20143 of the Act includes as the definition of a neglected minor the following:\n\"any minor under 18 years of age who is not receiving the proper or necessary support, education as required by law, or medical or other remedial care recognized under State law as necessary for a minor\u2019s well-being, or other care necessary for his or her well-being, including adequate food, clothing and shelter, or who is abandoned by his or her parents or other person responsible for the minor\u2019s welfare without a proper plan of care.\u201d 705 ILCS 405/2\u20143(1)(a) (West 1994).\nNeglect includes both willful and unintentional disregard of parental duties. In re Ashley F., 265 Ill. App. 3d 419, 424, 638 N.E.2d 368 (1994). A determination of neglect lies within the province of the circuit court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Ashley F., 265 Ill. App. 3d at 425.\nBased on the evidence, a finding of neglect was proper. Contrary to respondent\u2019s contention, a neglect determination encompasses more than merely the knowledge and control of respondent. Respondent left R.M. with her father, who was an unsuitable caregiver. Respondent\u2019s father allowed his girlfriend to take R.M. Respondent\u2019s father would not explain why he gave R.M. to his girlfriend because he did not want to get her in trouble. Respondent did not find an appropriate caregiver; as a result, R.M. was abandoned. The court\u2019s finding of neglect was not manifestly erroneous.\nRespondent next argues the circuit court failed to put in writing the factual basis of its finding that respondent was unwilling and unable to care for her child and, therefore, that finding should be vacated and the cause remanded. Respondent does not contest the court\u2019s finding that she was unwilling and unable to care for R.M. Section 2\u201427 of the Act reads, in part, as follows:\n\"If the court determines and puts in writing the factual basis supporting the determination of whether the parents, guardian, or legal custodian of a minor adjudged a ward of the court are unfit or are unable, for some reason other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train or discipline the minor or are unwilling to do so, and that it is in the best interest of the minor to take him from the custody of his parents, guardian or custodian, the court may at this hearing and at any later point [make a determination regarding the custody or guardianship of the minor].\u201d 705 ILCS 405/2\u201427(1) (West 1994).\nRespondent failed to object to the court\u2019s failure to make written findings. The issue is therefore waived. See Dineen v. City of Chicago, 125 Ill. 2d 248, 265, 531 N.E.2d 347 (1988). Waiver aside, section 2\u201427 sets forth a permissive requirement. See In re D.K., 125 Ill. App. 3d 309, 311, 465 N.E.2d 133 (1984). Moreover, the court\u2019s decision is supported by the record and the court\u2019s failure to write the factual basis for its determination does not necessitate remand.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSCARIANO and DiVITO, JJ, concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HARTMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Rita A. Fry, Public Defender, of Chicago (Emily Eisner, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.", "Patrick Murphy, Public Guardian, of Chicago (Lee Ann Lowder and R. Jane Burwell, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re R.M., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Verline M., Respondent-Appellant).\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 1\u201495\u20142711\nOpinion filed September 17, 1996,\nnunc pro tunc July 30, 1996.\nRita A. Fry, Public Defender, of Chicago (Emily Eisner, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nPatrick Murphy, Public Guardian, of Chicago (Lee Ann Lowder and R. Jane Burwell, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0469-01", "first_page_order": 487, "last_page_order": 490 }