{
  "id": 4267772,
  "name": "In re R.W. et al., Minors (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Melvin W., Respondent-Appellant)",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Melvin W.",
  "decision_date": "2007-03-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201406\u20140282",
  "first_page": "1171",
  "last_page": "1174",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "371 Ill. App. 3d 1171"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "858 N.E.2d 961",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 Ill. App. 3d 854",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        4266897
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/368/0854-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "827 N.E.2d 466",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 Ill. 2d 289",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        8451048
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/214/0289-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "834 N.E.2d 605",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 Ill. App. 3d 647",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5595738
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/359/0647-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "819 N.E.2d 1191",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 Ill. App. 3d 894",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3364448
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/353/0894-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 338,
    "char_count": 6849,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.749,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8303585418171369e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7206586175487452
    },
    "sha256": "f2b96cb45972a6ef39c4283713298db6245dd1f204c7bedc9c871cd1e6b2be50",
    "simhash": "1:730ef0647cc9fc72",
    "word_count": 1169
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:36.954096+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re R.W. et al., Minors (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Melvin W., Respondent-Appellant)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE McDADE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe respondent, Melvin W., is the father of the minor children R.W and S.W At the time the State filed its juvenile petition alleging that the minors were neglected, the respondent was not living with the children and their mother. The trial court adjudicated the minors to be neglected because of an injurious environment and placed them in the care of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). During a dispositional hearing, the respondent sought custody of the children. The court orally announced that it was reserving the issue of respondent\u2019s fitness. The court\u2019s written dispositional order, however, stated that the respondent was \u201cfit but reserved.\u201d The court denied the respondent\u2019s request for custody of his children.\nOn appeal, the respondent argues that the trial court erred by (1) denying him custody of the children when it had found him to be fit; and (2) finding that it was in the children\u2019s best interest to remain in DCFS custody. We affirm and remand with directions.\nBACKGROUND\nOn June 9, 2005, the State filed two nearly identical juvenile petitions alleging that RW and S.W. were neglected because of an injurious environment. The petition stated that the children\u2019s mother had left them alone and unsupervised on several occasions. Although the petition named the respondent as the father, none of the allegations referred to his conduct.\nOn September 28, 2005, the court adjudicated the children to be neglected and entered an order of default against the respondent. On that date, the court also issued a dispositional order in which it found the mother to be unfit, but made no ruling with regard to the respondent because it found his paternity at that time to be putative. In the September 28 dispositional order, the court made the children wards of the court and named DCFS as their guardian.\nLater, the respondent voluntarily acknowledged paternity of the minors. The court then granted the respondent\u2019s motion to vacate his default. Consequently, the court held a second dispositional hearing regarding the respondent on March 21, 2006, and April 11, 2006. At the conclusion of the April 11 proceeding, the judge said with regard to the respondent:\n\u201cI will reserve his fitness.\nNow, in terms of placement, I\u2019m going to again keep DCFS as the guardian. Let me say I don\u2019t believe this is an issue under 227 even though I found him fit but reserved.\u201d\nThe court issued its written dispositional order that same day. In the order the court stated that the respondent was \u201cfit but reserved.\u201d In the April 11 order, the court reiterated that the children were wards of the court and that DCFS was their guardian. The respondent appealed.\nANALYSIS\nThe respondent contends that the trial court erred by denying him custody of the children when it had found him to be fit.\nOnce a trial court adjudicates a child to be neglected, the court shall hold a dispositional hearing. 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 21(2) (West 2004). If the child is made a ward of the court at the dispositional hearing, the court shall determine the proper disposition. 705 ILCS 405/2\u2014 22(1) (West 2004). If the child was found neglected, the court shall not return the child to the custody of the parent until the court enters an order finding the parent to be fit to care for the child. 705 ILCS 405/ 2 \u2014 23(l)(a) (West 2004). If the court determines that the parent is unfit to care for the child, the court may commit the child to the care of DCFS. 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 27(l)(d) (West 2004). At the dispositional phase, the trial court may reserve the issue of a respondent\u2019s fitness. See In re E.L., 353 Ill. App. 3d 894, 819 N.E.2d 1191 (2004).\nWhen a trial court\u2019s oral pronouncement is in conflict with its written order, the oral pronouncement prevails. In re Taylor B., 359 Ill. App. 3d 647, 834 N.E.2d 605 (2005). A trial court\u2019s disposition that is not authorized by statute is void. In re D.W., 214 Ill. 2d 289, 827 N.E.2d 466 (2005).\nIn the present case, the preliminary issue is whether the trial court found the respondent to be fit, as the respondent asserts. The respondent contends that the court found him fit because its disposition was that he was \u201cfit but reserved.\u201d This is a question of law, which we review de novo. See In re Taylor D., 368 Ill. App. 3d 854, 858 N.E.2d 961 (2006).\nIn this case, the trial court\u2019s initial oral pronouncement was that the issue of respondent\u2019s fitness was reserved. Later, the court orally stated that it had found the respondent fit but reserved. In the written dispositional order, the court stated that it found the respondent fit but reserved.\nFirst, we note that the statutes concerning the dispositional phase of juvenile proceedings do not authorize a finding of \u201cfit but reserved.\u201d The statutes only speak of a finding of fitness or unfitness. See 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 23(l)(a), 2 \u2014 27(1)(d) (West 2004). Thus, the court\u2019s oral pronouncement and written order stating that the respondent was \u201cfit but reserved\u201d are void. See D.W., 214 Ill. 2d 289, 827 N.E.2d 466.\nThe court\u2019s oral pronouncement that it was reserving the issue of respondent\u2019s fitness was a valid determination by the court. See E.L., 353 Ill. App. 3d 894, 819 N.E.2d 1191. This oral pronouncement took precedence over the court\u2019s written order that the respondent was \u201cfit but reserved.\u201d See Taylor B., 359 Ill. App. 3d 647, 834 N.E.2d 605. Thus, the trial court reserved the matter of the respondent\u2019s fitness. We hold, therefore, that the respondent is incorrect as a matter of law that the trial court found him to be fit.\nBecause the trial court reserved the matter of the respondent\u2019s fitness, we need not consider the respondent\u2019s argument concerning whether it was in the best interest of the children to continue in the custody of DCFS. The court may not resolve the question of whether the respondent may have custody of the children until it determines whether the respondent is fit or unfit. See 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 23(l)(a), 2 \u2014 27(l)(d) (West 2004). Consequently, we remand the matter for the trial court to determine whether the respondent is dispositionally fit or unfit, and for further proceedings consistent with this order.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Peoria County circuit court and remand the cause with directions.\nAffirmed and remanded with directions.\nHOLDRIDGE and CARTER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE McDADE"
      }
    ],
    "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 Gary F. Gnidovec, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re R.W. et al., Minors (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Melvin W., Respondent-Appellant).\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201406\u20140282\nOpinion filed March 27, 2007.\nDerek G. Asbury, of Asbury Law Offices, EC., of Peoria, for appellant.\nKevin W Lyons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Peoria (Lawrence M. Bauer and Gary F. Gnidovec, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "1171-01",
  "first_page_order": 1189,
  "last_page_order": 1192
}