{ "id": 4290551, "name": "In re S.D., a Minor, Respondent-Appellee (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Gardenia S., Respondent-Appellee (The Department of Children and Family Services Guardianship Administrator, Appellant))", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Gardenia S.", "decision_date": "2009-09-30", "docket_number": "No. 1-09-0100", "first_page": "992", "last_page": "1002", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "394 Ill. App. 3d 992" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "281 Ill. App. 3d 189", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 150225 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "196-97" }, { "page": "196-97" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/281/0189-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 Ill. 2d 32", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 821417 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "39" }, { "page": "39" }, { "page": "39-40" }, { "page": "40" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/181/0032-01" ] }, { "cite": "348 Ill. App. 3d 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4022496 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "253-54" }, { "page": "254" }, { "page": "254" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/348/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 Ill. App. 3d 1041", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4265822 ], "weight": 9, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1048" }, { "page": "1048" }, { "page": "1048" }, { "page": "1048" }, { "page": "1048" }, { "page": "1048" }, { "page": "1048" }, { "page": "1048" }, { "page": "1048" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/368/1041-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 Ill. App. 3d 964", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4273064 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "969" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/377/0964-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 938, "char_count": 25365, "ocr_confidence": 0.752, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14424856429853633 }, "sha256": "82f1d88685f6403ce2f573340aa70b80c44eff8db43e4f76fb73fcb77439fab8", "simhash": "1:0baa60e6e8439b9e", "word_count": 4224 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:46:22.265343+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re S.D., a Minor, Respondent-Appellee (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Gardenia S., Respondent-Appellee (The Department of Children and Family Services Guardianship Administrator, Appellant))." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE FITZGERALD SMITH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nS.D.\u2019s mother, Gardenia S., filed a petition on November 6, 2007, under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 33 et seq. (West 2006)), to reinstate wardship and terminate private guardianship of S.D., alleging that S.D. wished to return to her custody. The juvenile court entered an order granting the petition. It also entered an order vacating the private guardianship. After a hearing on December 20, 2007, the juvenile court entered a modified disposition order returning S.D. to his mother, finding her fit, willing, and able. At an August 26, 2008, progress hearing, a Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) representative assigned to the case reported that Gardenia had been and was unable to handle S.D.\u2019s behavior. On December 8, 2008, another progress hearing was held, during which both the State and the public guardian argued that S.D. should be returned to the guardianship of DCFS. DCFS, on the other hand, argued that S.D. was ineligible to be returned to DCFS. After continuing the case and hearing more arguments on the issue, the juvenile court modified its dispositional order and placed S.D. in the custody/guardianship of D. Jean Ortega-Piron, the DCFS Guardianship Administrator. DCFS now appeals, arguing that the juvenile court had no statutory authority to appoint DCFS as S.D.\u2019s guardian. For the following reasons, we affirm.\nI. BACKGROUND\nS.D. was born on December 22, 1990, and first came to the attention of the juvenile court in April of 1993 when the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship alleging that S.D. and his siblings were abused and neglected. On May 24, 1993, the court found that S.D. had been abused and neglected as a result of physical abuse inflicted by his mother\u2019s boyfriend and adjudicated S.D. abused and neglected.\nOn August 10, 1993, the court entered a dispositional order in which it found S.D.\u2019s mother, Gardenia, unable to care for, protect, train, or discipline S.D. and adjudicated S.D. a ward of the court, appointing the DCFS Guardianship Administrator as his guardian. DCFS placed S.D. with his maternal grandmother, but later removed him following allegations of physical abuse. S.D. was placed in the guardianship of DCFS.\nS.D. was then placed in foster care with his maternal grandmother, but that was found to be inappropriate due to physical abuse at the home. S.D. was then placed in foster care with a nonrelative, Emily Neely.\nOn August 10, 1996, the court ordered a permanency goal of long-term foster placement for S.D. A 1997 evaluation of S.D.\u2019s mother identified possible organic impairment and found her to be on the borderline range of intellectual ability, functioning between the third- and fifth-grade levels. The clinical psychologist evaluating Gardenia wrote in her report that given the ages of her children, Gardenia \u201cmay be able to provide a safe, stable environment for them.\u201d\nOn January 7, 1998, the court determined that Gardenia was not making reasonable efforts and ordered a permanency goal of private guardianship for S.D. On June 30, 1998, the juvenile court entered an order allowing the mother to have unsupervised day visits with S.D. The next day, however, the court suspended unsupervised visits until further order of the court.\nIn March of 2000, DCFS filed a motion to vacate its guardianship and place S.D. in private guardianship with Neely. On June 2, 2000, the court ordered that S.D. be placed in private guardianship with Neely and found that it was in the best interest of S.D. to have no further monitoring by the court. DCFS provided a subsidy for Neely. S.D. required psychiatric hospitalization three times, at ages 14, 15, and 16, while in the custody of Neely.\nOver seven years later, on November 6, 2007, Gardenia filed a pro se supplemental petition stating:\n\u201c[I]n June 2007, the private guardian placed the Minor-Respondent in the care of various relatives due to the Minor\u2019s behavior problems and problems within the private guardian\u2019s family. On October 25, 2007, the Minor left his last placement with a relative of the private guardian and, with no other place to live, has been staying with Respondent-Mother.\u201d\nGardenia\u2019s petition asked the court to terminate the private guardianship, reinstate the wardship under section 2 \u2014 33, and return S.D. to Gardenia\u2019s full custody and control.\nOn November 20, 2007, the trial court granted the petition. It vacated Neely\u2019s private guardianship and entered a modified disposi-tional order adjudicating S.D. a ward of the court and placing him in the custody and guardianship of DCFS. The court then continued the matter until December 20, 2007.\nOn December 20, 2007, a hearing was held by the Honorable Candace Fabri, the juvenile court judge then assigned to S.D.\u2019s case. S.D. and Gardenia were both present in court. Victoria Davis-Jones, a DCFS worker, testified that she worked with Rodney Spencer, the employee assigned to S.D.\u2019s case. Davis-Jones testified that Spencer visited Gardenia\u2019s one-bedroom apartment and that Gardenia told Spencer she lived in section 8 (42 U.S.C. \u00a71437f (2000)) housing and would apply to get a two-bedroom apartment.\nDavis-Jones testified that Spencer enrolled S.D. in a GED program to begin on January 9, 2008, and expected to transfer the case to intact family services for weekly services and DCFS monitoring.\nGardenia, S.D.\u2019s mother, then testified that S.D. had been staying at the DCFS shelter and that he had three weekend visits at her home which went \u201creally well.\u201d She stated, \u201cI haven\u2019t really known him since he was what since he was three years old so it\u2019s been a really wonderful experience to be with him.\u201d She testified that her two older sons also had visits \u201calmost every weekend or almost every day\u201d at her home.\nThe State and the Public Guardian both expressed support for the plan to return S.D. to his mother\u2019s custody. The court then entered a modified dispositional order finding Gardenia to be fit, able, and willing to parent S.D. and entered an order of protective supervision. The order of protective supervision required Gardenia to, among other things, provide all care necessary for and ensure proper supervision of S.D.\nS.D.\u2019s case came before the juvenile court for periodic progress reports during 2008, with updates on S.D.\u2019s status provided by DCFS social worker Connie Haygood.\nForensic Clinical Services prepared a psychological summary report dated May 21, 2008, regarding S.D.\u2019s ability to stand trial in a criminal case. S.D. had been charged with aggravated robbery for allegedly stealing an iPod on a bus. The report further indicated that S.D. had experienced periods of depression related to being physically and sexually abused and placed in foster care. S.D. reported that he had angry outbursts and mood swings, that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and had been psychiatrically hospitalized at the ages of 14, 15, and 16. Testing revealed that S.D.\u2019s intellectual functioning fell within the \u201cborderline\u201d range and suggested that he had a verbal-based learning disorder. The examiner opined that S.D. was not at that time fit to stand trial and recommended therapeutic treatment.\nS.D. was hospitalized in Streamwood Behavioral Health Center from July 2, 2008, until November 13, 2008.\nOn August 26, 2008, Haygood appeared before the court and testified that the aggravated robbery charge against S.D. was still pending and that S.D. was currently at Streamwood Behavioral Health Center. Haygood further testified that Gardenia, S.D.\u2019s mother, no longer wanted custody of S.D. Haygood stated that a psychological evaluation and mental health assessment recommended that S.D. receive intensive psychiatric services. The evaluation also indicated that S.D. was taking medication and making progress, but had \u201csome more work to do in regards to fully understanding the judicial process.\u201d Haygood affirmed that S.D.\u2019s mother had expressed that she could not handle S.D.\u2019s behavioral problems upon his release.\nThe trial court expressed concern that DCFS had \u201craised this child from the age of two,\u201d that he had been returned to his mother for only a few months, and that he had mental health problems. The court found that DCFS should fulfill its moral obligation to S.D. The court indicated that it did not think that the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 2004)) permitted reappointment of DCFS as S.D.\u2019s guardian and that the court saw no avenue to do so.\nOn November 13, 2008, S.D. was found fit to stand trial. He pled guilty to aggravated robbery and the criminal court sentenced S.D. to mental health probation and his mother agreed to take him home.\nOn December 8, 2008, Haygood informed the juvenile court of the developments in S.D.\u2019s aggravated robbery case. She testified that previous attempts at having S.D. live with his mom had proved unsuccessful and that it did not appear that she was capable of providing the level of care S.D. required. Haygood testified that Gardenia said S.D. could no longer stay with her for two reasons: his behavior, and the property damage he had caused in her section 8 housing. After the last court date in the criminal case, S.D.\u2019s mother made an alternate care plan for S.D., and he resided with his former private guardian\u2019s daughter, Ms. J. Haygood testified that S.D. would no longer be able to stay with Ms. J. because he had taken some personal items from Ms. J.\u2019s husband and was no longer welcome there. Later questioning revealed that S.D. allegedly took a gun from the premises.\nHaygood further testified that S.D. was taking two psychotropic medications and that her inquiry revealed that he had been taking the medication as prescribed. When asked if she knew where S.D. would stay that night, Haygood responded that she did not know, but that S.D. had a key to his mother\u2019s house. Haygood stated that Gardenia had been staying at her mother\u2019s house and that she told Haygood she planned to move and not reveal her address to Haygood or S.D. Hay-good testified that S.D. could benefit from a more structured environment.\nHaygood also testified that S.D. had had a physical altercation with his maternal grandfather, who required stitches. Haygood testified that she had previously appeared in court and reported to the court that S.D.\u2019s mother did not want S.D. to return to her on any \u201csort of long-term basis or at all.\u201d\nThe assistant public guardian argued that an independent basis existed for placing S.D. in the custody of DCFS. DCFS argued that S.D. had been arrested three times since being returned to his mother\u2019s custody and that her decision not to allow S.D. to live with her was based on his criminal behavior, \u201cnot an independent basis.\u201d\nThe assistant State\u2019s Attorney argued that the court had authority to appoint DCFS as S.D.\u2019s guardian and that S.D. needed help that DCFS could provide. The State and the Public Guardian filed written arguments requesting the court to appoint DCFS as S.D.\u2019s guardian and detailing the court\u2019s authority to do so. The Public Guardian argued that the legislature intended to relieve the counties, which lack the child welfare expertise that DCFS has, of some financial burden by allowing a court to place a minor for whom an independent basis exists in the care of DCFS.\nDCFS submitted written argument stating that any unwillingness of Gardenia to care for S.D. was not independent of S.D.\u2019s criminal arrests and that there was therefore not an independent basis upon which to appoint DCFS S.D.\u2019s guardian. DCFS urged the court to leave S.D. in his mother\u2019s custody.\nOn December 12, 2008, the court heard additional arguments and entered a modified dispositional order, modifying the November 20, 2007, order, finding it to be in S.D.\u2019s best interest to be placed in the custody of DCFS. The court stated:\n\u201c[T]he court finds that an independent basis exists. In addition, the court takes judicial notice of testimony heard on December 8, 2008, the May 24, 1993 adjudication order finding of abuse and neglect and finds that this finding provides the court with an independent basis of abuse or neglect as required by 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 27(d).\u201d\nThe trial court went on to say that S.D.\u2019s mother had not had custody of S.D. for a long time before he was returned home, that his issues and behavior problems become overwhelming for her based on her mental ability, and that in the court\u2019s view, \u201cthat\u2019s enough for me to do it; and in [S.D.j\u2019s best interests, I am going to enter the order.\u201d The court based its decision on the \u201cplain reading of the statute.\u201d The court further found that the portion of the statute that states \u201ca minor for whom an independent basis of abuse, neglect, [or] dependency exists\u201d was satisfied in the original order entered in this case, thus giving the court wide discretion to do what is in the best interests of S.D. S.D. was therefore ordered to be placed in the guardianship of DCFS. DCFS now appeals.\nII. ANALYSIS\nOn appeal, DCFS argues that the trial court lacked the authority to appoint DCFS as S.D.\u2019s guardian. Specifically, DCFS claims that the trial court lacked authority where S.D. was 17 years old, and had been charged with and convicted of a criminal offense, and that no independent basis existed upon which to appoint DCFS as guardian. The State and the Public Guardian both argue that an independent basis existed upon which to appoint DCFS as guardian. We agree with the State and the Public Guardian.\nA. Standard of Review\nAs to the purely legal question of whether the Juvenile Court Act gave the trial court authority to appoint DCFS as S.D.\u2019s guardian, the standard of review is de novo. In re U.O., 377 Ill. App. 3d 964, 969 (2007).\nB. Argument\nPrior to June 1, 2008, section 2 \u2014 27(1)(d) of the Juvenile Court Act simply read in relevant part:\n\u201c[A] minor charged with a criminal offense under the Criminal Code of 1961 or adjudicated delinquent shall not be placed in the custody or committed to the Department of Children and Family Services by any court ***.\u201d 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 27(1)(d) (West 2004).\nUnder this version of the statute, the trial court would not have had authority to appoint DCFS as S.D.\u2019s guardian due to S.D.\u2019s aggravated robbery charge under the Criminal Code. However, on June 1, 2008, the legislature amended the above language, and the statute now reads in pertinent part:\n\u201c[A] minor charged with a criminal offense under the Criminal Code of 1961 or adjudicated delinquent shall not be placed in the custody of or committed to the Department of Children and Family Services by any court, except *** a minor for whom an independent basis of abuse, neglect, or dependency exists. An independent basis exists when the allegations or adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency do not arise from the same facts, incident, or circumstances which give rise to a charge or adjudication of delinquency.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 27(l)(d) (West 2008).\nThe first issue we are thus faced with is whether an independent basis of abuse, neglect, or dependency existed for S.D. Specifically, we must determine whether the allegations or adjudication of S.D.\u2019s abuse, neglect, or dependency arose from a separate set of facts, incident, or circumstances separate from those that gave rise to S.D.\u2019s charge of aggravated robbery. Because this particular issue has yet to be addressed since the amendment of section 2 \u2014 27(1) (d) became effective, this is a case of first impression.\nThe fundamental objective of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. In re Terrell L., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1041, 1048 (2006). The best indicator of legislative intent is the statutory language. Terrell, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1048. \u201cCourts should consider the statute in its entirety, keeping in mind the subject it addresses and the legislature\u2019s apparent objective in enacting it.\u201d Terrell, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1048. But a reviewing court\u2019s inquiry must always begin with the language of the statute itself, \u201cwhich is the surest and most reliable indicator of the legislature\u2019s intent.\u201d Terrell, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1048. When the language of a statute is clear, it must be applied as written, with no further reliance on aids or tools of interpretation. Terrell, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1048. If the statutory language is plain, the court cannot read exceptions, limitations, or conditions into the statute that the legislature did not express. Terrell, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1048. Only when the meaning of the statute cannot be ascertained from the language may a court look beyond the language and resort to aids for construction. Terrell, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1048.\nIn the instant case, the trial court relied, in making its finding that an independent basis existed for S.D., on the juvenile court\u2019s adjudication order entered on May 24, 1993, and the testimony heard on December 8, 2008. The trial court stated in pertinent part:\n\u201c[T]he court finds that an independent basis exists. In addition, the court takes judicial notice of testimony heard on December 8, 2008, the May 24, 1993 adjudication order finding of abuse and neglect, and finds that this finding provides the court with an independent basis of abuse or neglect as required by 705 ILCS 405/ 2 \u2014 27(d).\u201d\nDCFS argues, however, that the 1993 adjudication finding that S.D. was neglected and abused was too remote in time to qualify as an independent basis. DCFS further argues that the trial court\u2019s reliance on the adjudication was not a reasonable interpretation of section 2 \u2014 27 as it \u201cdoes not comport with the purposes of the [Juvenile Court] Act.\u201d DCFS claims that when the juvenile court reinstated Gardenia\u2019s wardship of S.D. on December 20, 2007, finding that Gardenia was fit, able, and willing to parent S.D., the 1993 adjudication of abuse and neglect should not have been relied upon to find an independent basis of abuse and neglect because the circumstances surrounding the 1993 adjudication had been corrected. We cannot agree with DCFS\u2019s contentions.\nAs stated above, our inquiry must always begin with the language of the statute itself. Terrell, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1048. When the language is clear, it must be applied as written, with no further reliance on aids or tools of interpretation. Terrell, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1048. Here, the language at issue states that a minor can be placed in the guardianship of DCFS, even if he or she has been charged with a crime, as long as there is an independent basis for which the trial court can find abuse, neglect, or dependency. The statute specifically defines an independent basis as allegations or an adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency not arising from the same facts and circumstances which gave rise to the criminal charge. See 705 ILCS 405/2\u2014 27(l)(d) (West 2008). Here, S.D. was previously adjudicated abused and neglected and taken out of his mother\u2019s custody in 1993. He was later charged with aggravated robbery for allegedly stealing an iPod on a bus. Thus, we agree with the trial court that the 1993 adjudication of abuse and neglect qualifies as an independent basis, as it did not arise from the same facts and circumstances which gave rise to S.D.\u2019s aggravated robbery charge.\nTo the extent that DCFS argues that such finding does not comport with the purpose of the Juvenile Court Act, or that the trial court\u2019s modified dispositional order of 2008 reinstating wardship to Gardenia rendered the 1993 adjudication of abuse moot, we are unpersuaded. This court noted, in In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d 239, 253-54 (2004), that once a trial court has adjudicated a minor abused or neglected, it maintains jurisdiction until the child \u201cages out\u201d of the juvenile system or the trial court issues an order expressly stating that the case is closed and all proceedings are discharged. Here, neither event happened since the 1993 adjudication. Furthermore, the court in Jaron Z. found that a child\u2019s return home does not \u201creset\u201d the procedural process of a case or somehow erase an earlier adjudication of abuse or neglect. Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d at 254. The court specifically stated that the fact \u201c[t]hat the adjudication occurred years earlier is of no moment, as the trial court possessed a continuing jurisdiction over the children and to modify orders affecting the disposition of their cause.\u201d Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d at 254. Likewise here, we find that S.D.\u2019s return to Gardenia\u2019s custody did not erase the 1993 adjudication. Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly found, based on the 1993 adjudication of abuse and neglect, that S.D. had an independent basis and therefore fit into the exception by which a minor charged with a crime could still be placed in DCFS\u2019s guardianship.\nEven if the 1993 adjudication was somehow rendered moot by Gardenia\u2019s subsequent reinstatement of wardship, however, we would still find that S.D. had an independent basis of abuse and neglect, based on the December 8, 2008, hearing. During said hearing, DCFS caseworker Haygood testified that attempts at having S.D. live with his mother had proved unsuccessful and that it did not appear that she was capable of providing the level of care S.D. required. She testified that Gardenia said S.D. could no longer stay with her because of his behavior problems and because of the property damage that he had caused in her section 8 housing. The testimony presented revealed allegations of neglect on the part of Gardenia. Such allegations were independent of the circumstances surrounding S.D.\u2019s aggravated robbery charge. Accordingly, the trial court properly found an independent basis of neglect for S.D. when it took judicial notice of the testimony presented at the December 8, 2008, hearing. We see no support for DCFS\u2019s contention that the testimony presented in the hearing did not establish an independent basis of abuse and neglect.\nDCFS further argues, relying on In re A.A., 181 Ill. 2d 32 (1998), that the trial court did not have the authority to place S.D. in the custody of DCFS, as it was against the intent of the legislature. DCFS cites to A.A. for the proposition that the General Assembly has broad discretion in amending the placement provisions to \u201c \u2018restrict the allocation of DCFS\u2019s scarce resources to its core population of abused, neglected, or dependent minors with no history of delinquency.\u2019 \u201d A.A., 181 Ill. 2d at 39, quoting In re C.T., 281 Ill. App. 3d 189, 196-97 (1996). And that \u201c \u2018delinquent minors aged 13 and older might present a danger to younger, more vulnerable children with whom they might be placed in foster homes and shelter care facilities.\u2019 \u201d A.A., 181 Ill. 2d at 39, quoting C.T., 281 Ill. App. 3d at 196-97. However, a reading of the case reveals that A.A. does not stand for such propositions. Rather, the court in A.A. recognized that the exception at issue in this case had been added as part of an amendment during the pendency of that appeal. Our supreme court then explicitly rejected the State\u2019s argument that \u201cbecause the legislature has now carved out an exception allowing delinquent teenagers to be placed in DCFS\u2019s temporary custody when there is an independent basis for finding abuse, neglect, or dependency, DCFS\u2019s younger charges are potentially exposed to older delinquents\u201d (A.A., 181 Ill. 2d at 39-40), stating:\n\u201cThe legislature could rationally distinguish between teenage minors whose need for shelter care is directly related to their delinquency (for example, minors who have been ejected from their family homes because of delinquent behavior) and those whose delinquency is or was independent from the basis for finding abuse, neglect or dependency. The legislature could reasonably conclude that the former group poses a greater threat than the latter to young nondelinquent children in DCFS\u2019s temporary custody.\u201d In re A.A., 181 Ill. 2d at 40.\nAccordingly, we reject DCFS\u2019s argument that the intent of the legislature was not to place minors like S.D., whose delinquency was independent from the basis for finding abuse, neglect, or dependency, in DCFS\u2019s custody. Thus, we maintain that the trial court had proper statutory authority to place S.D. in DCFS\u2019s guardianship.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.\nJudgment affirmed.\nTULLY and HOWSE, JJ., concur.\nA careful review of the record indicates that S.D. was charged with and pled guilty to aggravated robbery. However, there were no official documents included in the record that confirmed such charge and guilty plea.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE FITZGERALD SMITH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Sharon A. Purcell, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellant.", "Robert F. Harris, Public Guardian (Kass A. Plain and Mary Erigid Hayes, of counsel), and Anita M. Alvarez, State\u2019s Attorney (James E. Fitzgerald, Nancy Faulls, and Nancy Kisicki, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), both of Chicago, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re S.D., a Minor, Respondent-Appellee (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Gardenia S., Respondent-Appellee (The Department of Children and Family Services Guardianship Administrator, Appellant)).\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1\u201409\u20140100\nOpinion filed September 30, 2009.\nRehearing denied November 10, 2009.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Sharon A. Purcell, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellant.\nRobert F. Harris, Public Guardian (Kass A. Plain and Mary Erigid Hayes, of counsel), and Anita M. Alvarez, State\u2019s Attorney (James E. Fitzgerald, Nancy Faulls, and Nancy Kisicki, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), both of Chicago, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0992-01", "first_page_order": 1010, "last_page_order": 1020 }