{ "id": 256250, "name": "In re E.F., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. The Department of Children and Family Services et al., Respondents-Appellants)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Department of Children & Family Services", "decision_date": "2001-08-16", "docket_number": "No. 3 \u2014 00\u20140641", "first_page": "174", "last_page": "177", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "324 Ill. App. 3d 174" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "748 N.E.2d 183", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "188-89" }, { "page": "189" }, { "page": "193" }, { "page": "189" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 Ill. 2d 408", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 725364 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "415-16" }, { "page": "417" }, { "page": "424" }, { "page": "416" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/195/0408-01" ] }, { "cite": "669 N.E.2d 707", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "710" }, { "page": "711" }, { "page": "711-12" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 Ill. App. 3d 990", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 159495 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "994" }, { "page": "995" }, { "page": "996" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/282/0990-01" ] }, { "cite": "713 N.E.2d 750", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "752" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 Ill. App. 3d 813", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1208076 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "816-17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/305/0813-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 377, "char_count": 6035, "ocr_confidence": 0.76, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08, "percentile": 0.3757643785409883 }, "sha256": "147c407043d620a4279519737862a4def7019249913ce7c1bdd5476695e0e48e", "simhash": "1:a26239c27145dff4", "word_count": 1040 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:29.143572+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re E.F., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. The Department of Children and Family Services et al., Respondents-Appellants)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE LYTTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nSixteen-year-old E.E was adjudicated delinquent and sentenced to the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). We reverse and remand for a new sentencing hearing, finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to place him with DCFS.\nFACTS\nThe Will County State\u2019s Attorney filed two delinquency petitions against E.F., alleging that the 16-year-old minor committed criminal damage to his father\u2019s property and domestic battery against his stepmother. E.F. had lived with his mother for most of his life, but she had sent him to stay with his father due to his severe behavioral problems. His stepmother subsequently obtained an order of protection preventing E.F. from returning to the family home. After a trial, E.F. was adjudicated delinquent based on the charges in the delinquency petitions.\nAt the sentencing hearing on the delinquency charges, E.F.\u2019s guardian ad litem suggested that the county file a neglect petition; the county, on the other hand, recommended that the court sentence E.F. to DCFS due to the \u201coverriding circumstances.\u201d The trial court found that E.F. was neglected because the order of protection barred him from his father\u2019s house. The court then placed E.F. in the custody of DCFS. DCFS and E.F.\u2019s father filed motions to vacate the order, which were denied. DCFS appeals; we reverse and remand for a new sentencing hearing.\nDISCUSSION\nDCFS argues that in a pending delinquency petition the trial court lacks jurisdiction under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/1 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 2000)) to sentence E.F. to DCFS custody.\nThe county maintains that the trial court had the necessary authority because section 2 \u2014 10(2) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 10(2) (West 2000)) allows DCFS to take custody of any minor found to be neglected under section 2 \u2014 3(1)(a) (705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 3(l)(a) (West 2000)). The Act\u2019s definition of \u201ca neglected minor\u201d includes one \u201cwho is abandoned by his or her parents.\u201d 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 3(l)(a) (West 2000). Since the trial court found that E.F. was abandoned by his father because the order of protection prevented him from returning home, the county argues that the court had the authority to place him with DCFS as a neglected minor under section 2 \u2014 10(2) (705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 10(2) (West 2000)).\nel Because this issue concerns the scope of the court\u2019s authority under the Act, we will review it de nova. In re S.B., 305 Ill. App. 3d 813, 816-17, 713 N.E.2d 750, 752 (1999).\n\u20222 Section 5 \u2014 710(l)(a)(iv) of the Act states:\n\u201c(1) The following kinds of sentencing orders may be made in respect of wards of the court:\n(a) Except as provided in Sections 5 \u2014 805, 5 \u2014 810, 5 \u2014 815, a minor who is found guilty under Section 5 \u2014 620 may be:\n* * *\n(iv) placed in the guardianship of the Department of Children and Family Services, but only if the delinquent minor is under 13 years of age.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 705 ILCS 405/5\u2014 710(l)(a)(iv) (West 2000).\nThis court has previously found that the Act defines the scope of alternatives available to the circuit courts. In re C.M., 282 Ill. App. 3d 990, 994, 669 N.E.2d 707, 710 (1996). The legislature\u2019s decision to limit courts\u2019 ability to award custody of certain minors to DCFS under the Act was a valid exercise of its discretion. In re C.M., 282 Ill. App. 3d at 995, 669 N.E.2d at 711. A court\u2019s jurisdiction to remove a child from a parent\u2019s home based on a finding of neglect is \u201cpurely statutory and the proceedings and remedies provided by the Act are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme.\u201d In re A.H., 195 Ill. 2d 408, 415-16, 748 N.E.2d 183, 188-89 (2001). Thus, we are bound by the clear language of the Act.\n\u20223 In A.H., our supreme court reviewed the explicit statutory steps for awarding temporary custody of a child under section 2 \u2014 10 of the Act. \u201cProceedings under the Act are initiated by the filing of a petition for adjudication of wardship with the court pursuant to section 2 \u2014 13. 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 13 (West 1998).\u201d In re A.H., 195 Ill. 2d at 417, 748 N.E.2d at 189. The court noted that \u201ca petition is required for a temporary custody hearing and to begin the entire adjudicatory process.\u201d In re A.H., 195 Ill. 2d at 424, 748 N.E.2d at 193.\nHere, no neglect petition was filed under section 2 \u2014 10(2) prior to the entry of the trial court\u2019s custody order. At the sentencing hearing on the delinquency charges filed against E.F., the county orally requested that the court \u201csentence\u201d E.F. to the custody of DCFS. In the absence of a petition to initiate custody proceedings, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a custody award. A trial court may not exceed its authority under the Act regardless of how beneficial or desirable the result may be. In re C.M., 282 Ill. App. 3d at 996, 669 N.E.2d at 711-12. Thus, the trial court\u2019s order awarding custody of E.F. to DCFS is void. See In re A.H., 195 Ill. 2d at 416, 748 N.E.2d at 189.\nSince we find that the trial court\u2019s order was void because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the custody of E.F., we need not address the other issues raised on appeal.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of Will County is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nMcDADE and SLATER, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE LYTTON" } ], "attorneys": [ "James E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and Richard S. Huszagh (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellants.", "Jeff Tomczak, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John X. Breslin and Dawn D. Duffy (argued), both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.", "Edward E Graham and Daniel E Fitzgerald, both of Law Offices of Edward E Graham, Ltd., of Naperville, guardian ad litem." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re E.F., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. The Department of Children and Family Services et al., Respondents-Appellants).\nThird District\nNo. 3 \u2014 00\u20140641\nOpinion filed August 16, 2001.\nJames E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and Richard S. Huszagh (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellants.\nJeff Tomczak, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John X. Breslin and Dawn D. Duffy (argued), both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.\nEdward E Graham and Daniel E Fitzgerald, both of Law Offices of Edward E Graham, Ltd., of Naperville, guardian ad litem." }, "file_name": "0174-01", "first_page_order": 192, "last_page_order": 195 }