{
  "id": 261352,
  "name": "In re J.N. et al., Minors (The People of the State of Illinois, PetitionerAppellee, v. Tonda Eisenburg, Respondent-Appellant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Eisenburg",
  "decision_date": "1999-12-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 4-99-0518",
  "first_page": "1073",
  "last_page": "1075",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "308 Ill. App. 3d 1073"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "374 N.E.2d 1084",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1085"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Ill. App. 3d 11",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3356417
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "13"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/59/0011-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 4152,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.778,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.010316045452843004
    },
    "sha256": "bcfbb3560037d27094a590d1b50a254046e31bbeffbe126f89e0e334a11a070e",
    "simhash": "1:47ebe80650cecc72",
    "word_count": 664
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:54:33.383803+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re J.N. et al., Minors (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Tonda Eisenburg, Respondent-Appellant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE GARMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRespondent, Tonda Eisenburg, appeals from the May 24, 1999, order of the circuit court of Adams County, terminating her parental rights in her children, J.N. and D.N. We affirm.\nThe trial court adjudicated J.N. and D.N. wards of the court on September 5, 1996. On January 6, 1998, after a permanency review hearing, the trial court returned the children to the custody of their biological father, who was at that time married to respondent. This court affirmed the order. In. re D.N., No. 4 \u2014 98\u20140148 (August 6, 1998) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). The State filed a petition to terminate respondent\u2019s parental rights on June 23, 1998, alleging respondent had made neither reasonable progress nor reasonable efforts (750 ILCS 50/l(D)(m) (West Supp. 1997)) toward the return of her children.\nMeanwhile, respondent and her husband were seeking a divorce through a proceeding pending in the circuit court of Pike County. The divorce court entered an order in August 1998, granting respondent visitation rights under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Marriage Act) (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 1996 & Supp. 1997)). On June 9, 1999, in the juvenile case in Adams County, the trial court found respondent to be unfit and terminated her parental rights.\nOn appeal, respondent concedes that the trial court\u2019s order of termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence. She argues that the trial court nevertheless erred in terminating her parental rights because the termination order interfered with the visitation order entered by the divorce court in Pike County. She argues that the goal of permanency under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Act) (705 ILCS 405/1 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 1998)) had already been achieved by the trial court\u2019s placement of the children with their father. She contends that termination of her rights was sought, despite the achievement of permanency, only because of concern that respondent would have visitation rights pursuant to the divorce court\u2019s order. Thus, she concludes that the only purpose of the trial court\u2019s termination order was to override the divorce court\u2019s order. Thus, she contends the trial court essentially invaded the domain of the Marriage Act and the divorce court.\nRespondent\u2019s argument is without merit. Under the Marriage Act, the divorce court had limited subject-matter jurisdiction over the care, custody, and support of the children. Under the Juvenile Act and the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/0.01 et seq. (West 1998)), the trial court had concurrent jurisdiction over the issue of termination of parental rights. Patrick v. Patrick, 59 Ill. App. 3d 11, 13, 374 N.E.2d 1084, 1085 (1978). Because termination of parental rights abrogates all rights, including the right to visitation, the scope of the trial court\u2019s jurisdiction was, by definition, broader than that of the divorce court. Once the trial court adjudged respondent unfit by clear and convincing evidence, and found that it was in the best interests of J.N. and D.N. to terminate respondent\u2019s rights, the trial court\u2019s entry of the termination order was proper and nullified the divorce court\u2019s visitation order.\nWe hold that the trial court was not obligated to yield to the divorce court\u2019s visitation order in determining whether termination of respondent\u2019s rights was appropriate. The trial court\u2019s focus must be the best interest of the child. We also hold that the trial court\u2019s placement of J.N. and D.N. in the custody of their father did not preclude the State from seeking a termination of respondent\u2019s parental rights.\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nCOOK, EJ., and MYERSCOUGH, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE GARMAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. John Clark, of Quincy, for appellant.",
      "Barney S. Bier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Quincy (Norbert J. Goetten and Robert J. Biderman, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re J.N. et al., Minors (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Tonda Eisenburg, Respondent-Appellant).\nFourth District\nNo. 4 \u2014 99\u20140518\nOpinion filed December 10, 1999.\nE. John Clark, of Quincy, for appellant.\nBarney S. Bier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Quincy (Norbert J. Goetten and Robert J. Biderman, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "1073-01",
  "first_page_order": 1091,
  "last_page_order": 1093
}