{
  "id": 79316,
  "name": "In re Keri B., a Minor (The County of Will, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Keri B., Respondent-Appellee)",
  "name_abbreviation": "County of Will v. Keri B.",
  "decision_date": "2002-02-28",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 2-01-0371, 2-01-0372, 2-01-0373, 2-01-0374 cons.",
  "first_page": "1068",
  "last_page": "1072",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "327 Ill. App. 3d 1068"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "178 Ill. 2d 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        385509
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "479"
        },
        {
          "page": "479"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/178/0474-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 Ill. App. 3d 178",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        132357
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "192"
        },
        {
          "page": "192"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/321/0178-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 Ill. 2d 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        351263
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "416"
        },
        {
          "page": "418"
        },
        {
          "page": "419"
        },
        {
          "page": "419"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/196/0405-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5426498
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "133"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/63/0128-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 459,
    "char_count": 9116,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.747,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.02847802651471e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3735997735775329
    },
    "sha256": "46efc096ead755dd52d9021812999aad5a5de27bbf5d4f47d6b894a3bc94918c",
    "simhash": "1:c819cf4fe248f7d0",
    "word_count": 1577
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:57.852492+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re Keri B., a Minor (The County of Will, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Keri B., Respondent-Appellee)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE BOWMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn this consolidated appeal, the County of Will (Will County) appeals from an order entered by the circuit court of Du Page County requiring Will County to pay one-quarter of the residential placement costs for minor Keri B. The sole issue before us is whether, under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/1 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 2000)), the circuit court of Du Page County has the authority to order Will County, a county outside of its circuit, to pay a portion of the residential placement costs for a minor who resides in Will County. We hold that the circuit court does have such authority.\nThe record reveals that four original delinquent petitions were filed against Keri B. in Du Page County. The first three petitions alleged that Keri B. committed criminal offenses in Du Page County and also resided in Du Page County. The fourth petition alleged that Keri B. committed a criminal offense in Du Page County and resided in Will County. The court adjudged Keri B. delinquent, made her a ward of the court, and appointed her probation officer as her guardian.\nAt Keri B.\u2019s sentencing hearing, the court sentenced her to three years\u2019 probation under the supervision of the Du Page County probation department and, pursuant to section 5 \u2014 740 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/5 \u2014 740 (West 2000)), ordered her to complete a residential placement program selected by the Du Page County probation department. The court further ordered that Will County was responsible for the entire cost of the residential placement. Will County then appeared before the circuit court and filed a motion to vacate the court\u2019s order, arguing that the court exceeded its authority in requiring Will County to pay for Keri B.\u2019s residential placement. Reasoning that Keri B. was a resident of Will County only at the time the fourth original delinquent petition was filed, the trial court amended its order to require Will County to pay one-quarter of the residential placement costs and Du Page County to pay three-quarters of the costs.\nWill County filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court\u2019s order. No response brief has been filed. Nonetheless, we choose to address the merits of the appeal because the record in the case is simple and the issues are such that we can easily resolve them without the aid of an appellee\u2019s brief. First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976).\nThe issue before us is one of statutory interpretation. The Act \u201cis a comprehensive statutory scheme which creates rights and duties that have no counterparts in common law or equity.\u201d In re D.D., 196 Ill. 2d 405, 416 (2001). When, as in this case, a court\u2019s authority to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction and must proceed within the stricture of the statute. In re Detention of Hayes, 321 Ill. App. 3d 178, 192 (2001). We review de novo whether a trial court\u2019s order falls within the authority the legislature has granted. Hayes, 321 Ill. App. 3d at 192.\nThis court\u2019s role in construing a statute is to give effect to the legislature\u2019s intent. D.D., 196 Ill. 2d at 418. We must first examine the statute\u2019s language. D.D., 196 Ill. 2d at 419. When the language is plain and unambiguous, courts may not read in exceptions, limitations, or other conditions. D.D., 196 Ill. 2d at 419. We may also consider \u201cthe reason and necessity for the law, the evils to be remedied, and the objectives to be attained.\u201d Cummins v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 178 Ill. 2d 474, 479 (1997). In addition, we will presume that the legislature did not intend to create an absurd or unjust result. Cummins, 178 Ill. 2d at 479.\nTo determine the legislature\u2019s intent regarding the scope of a court\u2019s authority to order the payment of a minor\u2019s residential placement costs, we must examine sections 6 \u2014 7 and 6 \u2014 8 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/6 \u2014 7, 6 \u2014 8 (West 2000)). Section 6 \u2014 7(1) of the Act requires the county board of each county in the State to set aside annually a reasonable sum for payments for the care and support of minors. 705 ILCS 405/6 \u2014 7(1) (West 2000). Section 6 \u2014 7(2) further provides that \u201c[n]o county may be charged with the care and support of any minor who is not a resident of the county unless his parents or guardian are unknown or the minor\u2019s place of residence cannot be determined.\u201d 705 ILCS 405/6 \u2014 7(2) (West 2000).\nA court\u2019s authority to order a county to pay for a minor\u2019s residential placement is derived from section 6 \u2014 8 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/6 \u2014 8 (West 2000)). Section 6 \u2014 8(3) provides in relevant part:\n\u201cThe court may, when the health or condition of any minor subject to this Act requires it, order the minor placed in a public hospital, institution or agency for treatment or special care, or in a private hospital, institution or agency which will receive him without charge to the public authorities. If such treatment or care cannot be procured without charge, the court may order the county to pay an amount for such treatment from the fund established pursuant to Section 6 \u2014 7.\u201d 705 ILCS 405/6 \u2014 8(3) (West 2000).\nNotably, section 6 \u2014 8(3), and the rest of section 6 \u2014 8 as well, speaks only generally of \u201cthe court\u201d and \u201cthe county\u201d and does not indicate that a court may only order counties within its own circuit to pay for a minor\u2019s treatment. Pursuant to section 6 \u2014 7(2) it is clear that \u201cthe county\u201d referred to in section 6 \u2014 8(3) must be the county in which the minor resides, provided that none of the exceptions apply. Nowhere, though, does the act specify that \u201cthe court\u201d and \u201cthe county\u201d must be in the same circuit for section 6 \u2014 8(3) to apply. Accordingly, we conclude that the language of section 6 \u2014 8(3) is plain and unambiguous and does not limit the circuit court\u2019s authority in the manner suggested by Will County.\nMoreover, limiting the circuit court\u2019s authority in the manner Will County suggests would not be consistent with the reason and necessity for the Act, the evils to be remedied, and the objectives to be attained. Such a limitation would in fact frustrate the legislative intent of the Act, and of sections 6 \u2014 7 and 6 \u2014 8 in particular, in cases where a delinquent petition is filed against a minor in a county that is in a judicial circuit different from the minor\u2019s county of residence and the court determines that residential placement is required. In such a situation, section 6 \u2014 7(2) would bar the court from ordering the county in which the petition is filed to pay the relevant costs because the minor is not a county resident. Further, under Will County\u2019s interpretation, the court could not order the county where the minor resides to pay the costs because that county is not within the same circuit as the court. Consequently, the court would be powerless to order the proper county to pay the minor\u2019s residential placement costs. Such a result would contravene the legislature\u2019s clearly expressed intent that the county of a minor\u2019s residence shall be responsible for paying the costs associated with the minor\u2019s court-ordered treatment. See 705 ILCS 405/6 \u2014 7(1), (2) (West 2000). In addition, we note that Will County does not challenge the circuit court\u2019s authority to order Keri B. into residential placement. It would make .little sense to conclude that the Act provides the court with the authority to order Keri B. into residential placement but does not provide it with the authority to order payment for her treatment.\nWill County argues that sections 6 \u2014 1(1), 6 \u2014 2, 6 \u2014 4(2), and 6 \u2014 5 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/6 \u2014 1(1), 6 \u2014 2, 6 \u2014 4(2), 6 \u2014 5 (West 2000)) provide support for its position. We disagree. Section 6 \u2014 1 requires the chief judge for each circuit to provide for probation services for each county in his or her circuit. Section 6 \u2014 2 allows two counties in the same judicial circuit to form a joint probation district. Section 6 \u2014 4(2) enables a chief judge of the circuit court to appoint a director of the psychiatric department for any county or probation district in the circuit. Section 6 \u2014 5 addresses compensation of probation department personnel. These sections of the Act refer to certain responsibilities or activities that are particular to each circuit, but they do not demonstrate that the legislature intended to restrict a circuit court\u2019s ability to enter an order under section 6 \u2014 8(3) to counties within the court\u2019s own circuit.\nAccordingly, for the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County.\nAffirmed.\nHUTCHINSON, EJ., and GEIGER, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE BOWMAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jeffrey J. Tomczak, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John A. Urban and Barbara N. Petrungaro, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "N. Scott Conger, of Brucar, Conger & Yetter, PC., of Glen Ellyn, and Nancy J. Wolfe, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of Wheaton, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re Keri B., a Minor (The County of Will, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Keri B., Respondent-Appellee).\nSecond District\nNos. 2-01-0371, 2-01-0372, 2-01-0373, 2-01-0374 cons.\nOpinion filed February 28, 2002.\nJeffrey J. Tomczak, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John A. Urban and Barbara N. Petrungaro, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant.\nN. Scott Conger, of Brucar, Conger & Yetter, PC., of Glen Ellyn, and Nancy J. Wolfe, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of Wheaton, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1068-01",
  "first_page_order": 1086,
  "last_page_order": 1090
}