{ "id": 221505, "name": "In re D.L., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. D.L., a Minor, Respondent-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. D.L.", "decision_date": "1998-09-30", "docket_number": "No. 4-97-0399", "first_page": "269", "last_page": "273", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "299 Ill. App. 3d 269" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "485 N.E.2d 848", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "851" }, { "page": "853" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 Ill. 2d 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3125654 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "137" }, { "page": "139-40" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/109/0129-01" ] }, { "cite": "644 N.E.2d 1153", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1156" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 Ill. 2d 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 477978 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "270" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/163/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "660 N.E.2d 545", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "547" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 Ill. App. 3d 32", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1172362 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "35" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/277/0032-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 469, "char_count": 9707, "ocr_confidence": 0.779, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.659151935736055e-07, "percentile": 0.6939941286152205 }, "sha256": "73ea6b3637f5eb73807faf2e58790ae22c4784eafab9a5e5c57b303bccba9b91", "simhash": "1:5ca27ca4f74f0eb3", "word_count": 1653 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:02:33.989314+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "GREEN and McCULLOUGH, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "In re D.L., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. D.L., a Minor, Respondent-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE COOK\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRespondent, D.L., appeals from orders adjudicating him delinquent, placing him on probation, and revoking his probation. D.L. contends his father was not given proper notice of the proceedings, so that the court\u2019s orders are void for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.\nOn October 24, 1994, the Vermilion County State\u2019s Attorney filed a petition for adjudication of wardship alleging D.L., who was born March 14, 1981, was a delinquent minor because he committed aggravated battery on August 31, 1994. The petition alleged D.L. and his mother lived at 102 Illinois Street in Danville, Illinois, but both the name and address of D.L.\u2019s father were \u201cunknown.\u201d On December 5, 1994, an affidavit for service by publication was filed, alleging D.L.\u2019s father\u2019s name and address were unknown. On December 19, 1994, a certificate of publication was filed, giving \u201cunknown father\u201d notice of an adjudicatory hearing on the petition on December 20, 1994. On December 20, 1994, two summonses were filed along with returns of service indicating D.L. and his mother were each served notice of the December 20, 1994, hearing on December 19, 1994, at 102 Illinois Street in Danville. On December 20, 1994, a written plea agreement was presented to the court, but the court reset the cause for January 24, 1995. D.L. and his mother were given notice of that hearing. On January 24, 1995, the court accepted the plea agreement, adjudicated D.L. a delinquent minor, and placed him on probation for 18 months.\nOn November 6, 1995, a petition to revoke D.L.\u2019s probation was filed alleging D.L. committed theft, and on November 17, 1995, a supplemental petition to revoke probation was filed alleging D.L. violated his probation by not attending school and by associating with his corespondents. On December 4, 1995, a supplemental petition for adjudication of wardship was filed alleging the same count of theft as contained in the petition to revoke probation. On the supplemental petition, D.L.\u2019s father was still listed as \u201cunknown.\u201d D.L. and his mother were given notice of these petitions. On January 9, 1996, D.L. admitted the allegations contained in each petition. On February 8, 1996, pursuant to the court\u2019s request, the probation department filed a social history report. The report named D.L.\u2019s father and identified his address as 102 Illinois Street in Danville, the address where D.L. and his mother resided. D.L.\u2019s mother advised the probation officer that she and D.L.\u2019s father had resided together since D.L.\u2019s birth in 1981, and that D.L., his mother, and father, had resided together at 102 Illinois Street in Danville since 1991.\nOn February 21, 1996, the court ordered D.L. committed to the Juvenile Division of the Department of Corrections (JDDOC) for a 60-day evaluation. After an April 17, 1996, dispositional hearing, the court placed D.L. on probation for two years.\nOn December 30, 1996, a petition to revoke D.L.\u2019s probation was filed. On February 14, 1997, two summons for the March 31, 1997, hearing on the petition to revoke probation were filed, each showing service on January 29, 1997, to D.L. and his mother. The summons were issued to D.L. and his mother at 102 Illinois Street in Danville.\nThe court found the petition to revoke proved and on March 31, 1997, revoked D.L.\u2019s probation. The court also ordered an updated social report, which was filed on April 17, 1997. The report indicated that D.L. and both parents continued to reside at 102 Illinois Street in Danville. After the April 30, 1997, dispositional hearing on the petition to revoke the court ordered D.L. committed to JDDOC for 120 days.\nThe record shows D.L. was present with his mother and represented throughout the delinquency and revocation proceedings. There is no showing, however, of an appearance by D.L.\u2019s father at any of the court appearances at any point during the case. In fact, the only mention of D.L.\u2019s father during the proceedings was at the March 31, 1997, adjudicatory hearing on the petition to revoke, describing his occasional participation in family counseling from 1995-96. Apart from the notice by publication to D.L.\u2019s father on December 19, 1994, D.L.\u2019s father was not given notice of any of the other hearings.\nOn appeal D.L. argues the original order adjudicating him delinquent is void because his father was not served with proper notice of the hearings on the original petition for adjudication of wardship, thereby failing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. D.L.\u2019s father was given notice by publication because the State, in the petition, alleged D.L.\u2019s father\u2019s name and address were unknown. D.L. contends notice by publication to his father on the original petition was improper because the State should have known of D.L.\u2019s father\u2019s existence and whereabouts since he lived with D.L. and his mother, and so his father should have been served personally. D.L. also contends the adjudicatory and dispositional orders on the petition to revoke probation, committing D.L. to JDDOC for 120 days, are void since his father, who was known and serviceable, was given no notice of those hearings.\nThe Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) provides that the parents of a minor have a right to be present at proceedings conducted under the Act. 705 ILCS 405/1 \u2014 5(1) (West 1994). A petition alleging a minor\u2019s delinquency must provide the names and residences of the minor\u2019s parents. 705 ILCS 405/5 \u2014 13(2) (West 1994). If any of these facts are unknown, the petition must allege that they are unknown. In re C.H., 277 Ill. App. 3d 32, 35, 660 N.E.2d 545, 547 (1995). Notice of proceedings must be given to the minor\u2019s parents who are named as respondents in the petition. 705 ILCS 405/5 \u2014 15(1) (West 1994). Service of a summons and a petition is to be made either by personal service or by delivering a copy to the person\u2019s abode and then mailing another copy to that address. 705 ILCS 405/5 \u2014 15(5) (West 1994). Service may be made by certified mail if personal or abode service is not made on a respondent within a reasonable time or if it appears a respondent resides outside Illinois. 705 ILCS 405/5 \u2014 16(1) (West 1994). Service by publication may be had only if personal or abode service is not mad\u00e9 on a respondent within a reasonable time, or if a person is made a respondent under the designation of \u201cAll whom it may Concern,\u201d or if service cannot be made because the whereabouts of a respondent are unknown. 705 ILCS 405/5 \u2014 16(2) (West 1994). In addition to these statutory requirements, a minor and his parents have a constitutional right of due process to receive adequate notice of a juvenile proceeding. In re C.R.H., 163 Ill. 2d 263, 270, 644 N.E.2d 1153, 1156 (1994).\nA respondent minor waives the issue of lack of notice to a noncustodial parent unless the minor brings before the trial court the State\u2019s failure to identify or locate a noncustodial parent whose identity or address is not known to the State at the outset of the proceedings. A minor also may waive any question regarding the State\u2019s diligence in attempting to locate and serve a noncustodial parent. In re J.RJ., 109 Ill. 2d 129, 137, 485 N.E.2d 848, 851 (1985).\n\u201c[T]he State\u2019s diligence in identifying or locating a parent whose identity or address was not known to the State at the commencement of the proceedings may not be attacked on appeal if the question was not also raised in the circuit court, where a record on the matter could have been made in the first instance. To hold otherwise would permit the minor to keep the issue in reserve and, if an appeal proves necessary, to raise it then, when the record is barren.\u201d J.P.J., 109 Ill. 2d at 139-40, 485 N.E.2d at 853.\nD.L. has waived his notice arguments on appeal. Throughout the nearly three years of judicial proceedings in this case, neither D.L., his mother, nor his counsel ever brought to the attention of the trial court the fact that the State did not provide his father with notice of the proceedings. Apparently D.L. and his parents all lived together. During the pendency of this case D.L. and his mother either knew that his father was not served and decided not to bring it to the trial court\u2019s attention, or they were not concerned that his father was never served and never appeared at the hearings. It is also hard to imagine that his father would not have known about the proceedings. D.L.\u2019s father did occasionally attend counseling sessions with D.L. and his mother in 1995 and 1996. Bringing this issue to the attention of the trial court would have been of little benefit to D.L. It only benefits him to raise this issue on appeal, his only issue on appeal, and we will not reward him for reserving it until he thought it could help him. Even though J.RJ. involved waiver of the notice requirement as to a noncustodial parent, that principle is even stronger in this situation, involving a custodial parent. When all the family members live together, those persons who were served have an even better opportunity to bring the issue to the trial court\u2019s attention at some point during the case.\nWe affirm the orders of the circuit court.\nAffirmed.\nGREEN and McCULLOUGH, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE COOK" } ], "attorneys": [ "Daniel D. Yuhas and Lawrence J. Essig, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.", "Michael D. Clary, State\u2019s Attorney, of Danville (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Jeffrey K. Davison, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re D.L., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. D.L., a Minor, Respondent-Appellant).\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201497\u20140399\nOpinion filed September 30, 1998.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Lawrence J. Essig, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nMichael D. Clary, State\u2019s Attorney, of Danville (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Jeffrey K. Davison, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0269-01", "first_page_order": 287, "last_page_order": 291 }