{
  "id": 4265758,
  "name": "In re A.E., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Angela E., Respondent-Appellant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Angela E.",
  "decision_date": "2006-12-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201406\u20140594",
  "first_page": "1142",
  "last_page": "1146",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "368 Ill. App. 3d 1142"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "752 N.E.2d 1030",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 Ill. 2d 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        351282
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/196/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "669 N.E.2d 707",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 Ill. App. 3d 990",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        159495
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/282/0990-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "789 N.E.2d 1259",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 Ill. 2d 382",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        609701
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/204/0382-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 378,
    "char_count": 7473,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.749,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.14289809946448614
    },
    "sha256": "f01d4375d134cbde904169154d4b2e6e6f2c346d6df4722e19eeb0e3e539953b",
    "simhash": "1:abe8b83a9a86b62e",
    "word_count": 1293
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:06:43.500571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re A.E., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Angela E., Respondent-Appellant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe respondent-mother, Angela E., was found to be an unfit parent, and her parental rights to A.E. (minor) were terminated. Angela appeals, arguing that the trial court lacked authority to order the termination of her parental rights to A.E., where A.E. was 18 years old when the court\u2019s judgment was entered. We affirm.\nFACTS\nBecause Angela challenges only the trial court\u2019s authority to enter its judgment, we limit our presentation of the facts to those necessary for our review of the matter. The State filed a juvenile petition for wardship on May 18, 2004, alleging that A.E., born September 18, 1987, was neglected. On November 23, 2004, the trial court entered a finding of neglect. On February 1, 2005, the minor was made a ward of the court, and guardianship was awarded to the Department of Children and Family Services.\nOn December 8, 2005, the State petitioned for termination of parental rights, alleging that Angela was unfit because she failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the minor\u2019s welfare. 750 ILCS 50/l(D)(b) (West 2004). The hearing on the State\u2019s petition to terminate Angela\u2019s parental rights commenced on April 26, 2006, and concluded on June 7. At the close of the evidence and argument, the trial court found that the State had proved Angela\u2019s unfitness by clear and convincing evidence.\nThe best interest hearing was held on July 26, 2006. The tri\u00e1l court found that it was in the best interest of the minor to terminate Angela\u2019s parental rights. The court granted the State\u2019s petition, and Angela appeals.\nANALYSIS\nThe issue raised by Angela for our review is whether the trial court lacked authority to enter its order terminating her parental rights because the minor had reached the age of 18. Specifically, Angela contends that section 2 \u2014 23 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 23 (West 2004)) limits the trial court\u2019s authority to conduct a hearing to terminate parental rights with regard to minors under 18 years of age found to be dependent, neglected or abused.\nInitially the State asserts that Angela has forfeited this issue for our review by filing a defective notice of appeal. At trial, the respondent-father moved to strike the minor as a respondent because she had reached 18 years of age. In her notice of appeal, Angela did not cite this order, but instead cited the trial court\u2019s order finding that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the minor. The State argues that in order for this court to obtain jurisdiction, Angela was required to cite the trial court\u2019s dismissal of the motion filed by the respondent-father.\nSupreme Court Rule 303(b)(2) requires that the notice of appeal \u201cshall specify the judgment or part thereof or other orders appealed from and the relief sought from the reviewing court.\u201d 210 Ill. 2d R. 303(b)(2). In the instant case, Angela challenges the trial court\u2019s authority to enter its order terminating her parental rights. Her notice of appeal cites that order. We, therefore, reject the State\u2019s argument.\nWe also reject the State\u2019s assertion that Angela forfeited this issue for our review by failing to raise it below. A challenge to the court\u2019s authority to hear a given controversy may be raised at any time. In re J.B., 204 Ill. 2d 382, 789 N.E.2d 1259 (2003). We also note that reviewing courts have a duty to raise such issues sua sponte where they were not raised by the parties. J.B., 204 Ill. 2d 382, 789 N.E.2d 1259. In the instant case, Angela challenges the court\u2019s authority to hear the State\u2019s petition for termination of her parental rights. Therefore, we review the issue on its merits.\nAngela asserts that the trial court lacked authority under the Act to order that her parental rights be terminated as to the minor, because the minor was 18. The State counters that Angela relies on a misinterpretation of the Act. Where, as here, we are called upon to interpret a statutory provision, our primary goal is to give effect to the legislature\u2019s intent. In re C.M., 282 Ill. App. 3d 990, 669 N.E.2d 707 (1996). We do so by looking to the plain language of the statute and giving the language its ordinary meaning. In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 752 N.E.2d 1030 (2001). If the language is clear and unambiguous, we must give it effect as written without applying internally contradictory interpretations. See C.M., 282 Ill. App. 3d 990, 669 N.E.2d 707.\nUnder section 1 \u2014 3 of the Act, a \u201cminor\u201d is defined as \u201ca person under the age of 21 years subject to this Act.\u201d 705 ILCS 405/1 \u2014 3(10) (West 2004). An \u201cadult\u201d is defined as \u201ca person 21 years of age or older.\u201d 705 ILCS 405/1 \u2014 3(2) (West 2004). Under section 2 \u2014 23 of the Act, the trial court may only enter dispositional orders with regard to a \u201cminor under 18 years of age\u201d found to be abused, neglected or dependent. 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 23 (West 2004). The Act defines a \u201cdispositional hearing\u201d as \u201ca hearing to determine whether a minor should be adjudged to be a ward of the court, and to determine what order of disposition should be made in respect to a minor adjudged to be a ward of the court.\u201d 705 ILCS 405/1 \u2014 3(6) (West 2004). Section 2 \u2014 29 of the Act provides that a minor who is the subject of an abuse, neglect or dependency petition under the Act may be the subject of a petition for termination of parental rights. 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 29(1) (West 2004).\nLooking to the plain language of the statute and giving the language its ordinary meaning, we must reject Angela\u2019s argument. Angela is correct in noting that section 2 \u2014 23 contains limiting language requiring that the minor be under the age of 18 at the time the court enters a dispositional order. However, an order terminating parental rights is governed by section 2 \u2014 29, which contains no modifying language as to the term \u201cminor.\u201d Thus, with regard to section 2 \u2014 29, the legislature intended to employ the general definition of \u201cminor\u201d provided by the Act. The Act defines a minor as a person under the age of 21. 705 ILCS 405/1 \u2014 3(10) (West 2004). We therefore hold that the trial court has authority to terminate parental rights with regard to a minor who is under the age of 21, so long as the minor was adjudicated abused, neglected or dependent and a subsequent dispositional order was entered by the court when the minor was under 18 years of age.\nIn the instant case, the minor was 16 years old when the State brought its petition for juvenile wardship alleging neglect. The minor was 17 years old when the court adjudicated her neglected and entered its dispositional order. She was 18 years old when the State filed its petition to terminate Angela\u2019s parental rights and when the court granted the petition. We find that the court had authority to hear the State\u2019s petition and order that Angela\u2019s parental rights with regard to the minor be terminated.\nCONCLUSION\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMcDADE and O\u2019BRIEN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Derek G. Asbury, of Asbury Law Offices, EC., of Peoria, for appellant.",
      "Kevin W. Lyons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (Lawrence M. Bauer and Richard T. Leonard, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re A.E., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Angela E., Respondent-Appellant).\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201406\u20140594\nOpinion filed December 8, 2006.\nDerek G. Asbury, of Asbury Law Offices, EC., of Peoria, for appellant.\nKevin W. Lyons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (Lawrence M. Bauer and Richard T. Leonard, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "1142-01",
  "first_page_order": 1160,
  "last_page_order": 1164
}