{ "id": 3182934, "name": "In re EVELYN MOORE, a Minor.-(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JANICE MOORE BUCK, Respondent-Appellant.)", "name_abbreviation": "In re Moore", "decision_date": "1980-08-21", "docket_number": "No. 78-1675", "first_page": "1117", "last_page": "1122", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "87 Ill. App. 3d 1117" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "323 N.E.2d 42", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 Ill. App. 3d 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2705544 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/25/0136-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 N.E.2d 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. App. 3d 934", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3353648 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/60/0934-01" ] }, { "cite": "350 N.E.2d 826", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "39 Ill. App. 3d 821", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5379888 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/39/0821-01" ] }, { "cite": "397 N.E.2d 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193" }, { "page": "193" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 Ill. App. 3d 1048", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3291010 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1053" }, { "page": "1053" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/77/1048-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 616, "char_count": 13101, "ocr_confidence": 0.896, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.535235338046766e-07, "percentile": 0.6718571237164792 }, "sha256": "7d71a323e96fd8fb863815f8ee6fed6676a296f0a53645c9ac34ffcb0e016f3a", "simhash": "1:33ebe4e060d9dd97", "word_count": 2154 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:36.886143+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re EVELYN MOORE, a Minor.\u2014(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JANICE MOORE BUCK, Respondent-Appellant.)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE LINN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRespondent, Janice Moore Buck, appeals from an order finding her an unfit parent (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 702 \u2014 4(1) (b)) and granting permanent custody of her daughter, Evelyn Moore (Evelyn) to Evelyn\u2019s maternal grandmother (Mrs. Moore), also named Evelyn Moore. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 705-7(1) (a).\nOn appeal, respondent contends: (1) the trial court\u2019s acceptance of her admission to the allegation of neglect violated her right to due process of law; (2) she was denied effective assistance of counsel; (3) reversible error occurred when the trial court unduly restricted cross-examination of a State\u2019s witness and direct examination of a defense witness; (4) the evidence of parental unfitness was not clear and convincing; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion by appointing the maternal grandmother as Evelyn\u2019s guardian.\nSince we reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing, we find it necessary only to address the first issue.\nOn August 5,1977, a petition for adjudication of wardship on behalf of the minor Evelyn Moore, then five years old, was filed by Agnes Piszcek. The petitioner alleged that Evelyn was neglected by reason of an injurious environment (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 702 \u2014 4(1) (b)). The specific allegations of the petition were that on January 25, 1977, and August 2, 1977, the minor\u2019s maternal grandmother took the minor to Mercy Hospital where an examining physician found that Evelyn had a relaxed vaginal vault and the doctor believed the relaxation was due to frequent sexual assault. The petition also alleged that the minor had said that Donnie Buck, her stepfather, \u201clays on top of her and puts part of himself in her\u201d and that the child\u2019s mother had failed to obtain medical care for the minor. The medical reports from Mercy Hospital were not attached to the petition nor made a part of the record.\nA detention hearing was held the same day the petition was filed and a guardian ad litem was appointed to represent Evelyn. An assistant public defender accepted appointment to represent respondent Janice Moore Buck, Evelyn\u2019s mother. The court granted a \u201cby agreement\u201d order giving temporary custody to the maternal grandmother, and ordered a social investigation by the Department of Children and Family Services.\nOn November 1, 1977, the adjudicatory hearing was held. The following colloquy occurred:\n\u201c[Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, at this time, I hate to impose upon the Court, I would ask for perhaps five or ten minutes.\nThe State\u2019s Attorney and I believe is not ready either and we would both appreciate a few minutes grace.\n[Asst. States A tty]: I would join in that. If we could pass the case for ten minutes.\nThe Court: We\u2019ll pass the case to let counsel talk.\nThe Court: All right, recall of the Evelyn Moore case.\nNow are both sides ready to proceed?\n[Asst. States Atty]: Yes, we are, Your Honor.\nI have consulted with Ms. Nash and she has informed me that the parents wish to \u2014 the mother wishes to make her admission at this time.\n[Defense Counsel]: Yes, Your Honor, as to environment injurious.\nThe Court: Admission of the mother as to environment? All right. We have previously defaulted the father by publication. Who is going to testify in this case?\u201d\nAgnes Cooper, a caseworker for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), who was assigned to conduct a social investigation testified that another caseworker (who was no longer with the agency) investigated a report from Mercy Hospital that the minor, Evelyn, allegedly had been sexually molested. That worker did not, however, confront the person accused of the allegations. On August 3, 1977, a social worker from Mercy Hospital reported new allegations that Evelyn had been sexually molested. Cooper spoke with the mother, the stepfather, and Evelyn. Evelyn lived with her mother but sometimes resided with her maternal grandmother. Cooper never spoke with Evelyn about the allegations, but Evelyn appeared frightened when asked her feelings towards her stepfather.\nEvelyn\u2019s maternal grandmother, Mrs. Moore, testified that she had taken Evelyn to the hospital in January and again in August. She also stated that sometime in January (she could not remember the date) Evelyn\u2019s pants were messy and Evelyn said \u201cDon ate on her.\u201d Later in August 1977, while one of Mrs. Moore\u2019s daughters bathed Evelyn, Mrs. Moore observed blood dripping from Evelyn. Mrs. Moore said Evelyn told her, \u201cNo mama, no mama. He said he going to kill my mama.\u201d Mrs. Moore asked who said this and Evelyn said, \u201cMy daddy * * At the conclusion of this testimony, the court ruled, \u201cAll right then, that\u2019s enough. There will be a finding of neglect * * * . Let the record indicate environment injurious * * * and adjudication of wardship ***\u201d\nOn May 24,1978, at the dispositional hearing, respondent was represented by new counsel. A \u201cby agreement\u201d dispositional plan with monitoring and counseling services for the family was proffered by respondent. Because the clinical evaluation of respondent\u2019s psychiatrist differed from the evaluation of the State\u2019s psychiatrist, the court refused to accept the agreed order and a contested hearing was held. At the close of the hearing, despite recommendations from the assistant state\u2019s attorney, the assistant public defender, the guardian ad litem, and the DCFS caseworker, to not place Evelyn in the custody of her maternal grandmother, Mrs. Moore, the court did so. This appeal followed.\nOpinion\nRespondent contends she was denied due process when the trial court failed to explain to her the nature of the adjudicatory proceedings and this failure violated section 1 \u2014 20 of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 701 \u2014 20). Respondent urges that it was incumbent on the trial court to explain the nature of the proceedings prior to accepting counsel\u2019s admission on her behalf as to environment injurious (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 702 \u2014 4(1) (b)) and prior to adjudicating Evelyn a ward of the court.\nSection 1 \u2014 20, entitled \u201cRights of parties to the proceedings,\u201d provides:\n\u201c(1) * * * the minor who is the subject of the proceeding and his parents, guardian, legal custodian or responsible relative who are parties respondent have the right to be present, to be heard, to present evidence material to the proceedings, to cross-examine witnesses, to examine pertinent court files and records and also, although proceedings under this Act are not intended to be adversary in character, the right to be represented by counsel. * * *\n(3) At the first appearance before the court by the minor, his parents, guardian, custodian or responsible relative, the court shall explain the nature of the proceedings and inform the parties of their rights under the first 2 paragraphs of this Section.\u201d\nWhile under the statute it is clearly error if the court fails to admonish the parents of their rights, it does not follow that such error would require reversal in every case. When, however, the State seeks an adjudication of neglect and the court has failed to admonish the parents \u201cthat their child may become a ward of the State and that, upon such a determination, they may lose the custody of their child\u201d (In re Smith (1979), 77 Ill. App. 3d 1048, 1053, 397 N.E.2d 189, 193), a new adjudicatory hearing is required where the parent enters into an admission of neglect and it is not apparent that the parent was aware of his or her rights or that the proceedings could result in the loss of custody of the child.\nIn the instant case, there is nothing in the record to indicate that prior to the time respondent\u2019s admission was entered, she had been informed that she had the \u201cright to be heard\u201d or present evidence material to the proceedings. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 701 \u2014 20(1).) Thus, we are unable to determine whether respondent knew she had the right to contest the allegations of neglect and adjudication of wardship.\nWe also are unable to determine from this record whether respondent was aware of the nature of the adjudicatory proceeding: that she could lose permanent custody of her child; or whether she was aware of the consequences of her admission: that a finding of neglect gives the court jurisdiction of the minor who then becomes subject to the dispositional powers of the court. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 701 \u2014 18.) These powers include granting custody of the minor to the parents, a guardian, or a legal custodian (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 705 \u2014 2(1) (c)) or \u201cplac[ing] him under the guardianship of a probation officer; 000 committing] him to an agency for care or placement \" * or \u201c \u00b0 # * committing] him to the Department of Children and Family Services for care and service. * * * \u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 705 \u2014 7(1) (b), (c), (f).) Thus, after the adjudication of wardship, the parents may lose permanent custody of their child and retain only \u201cresidual parental rights.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 701 \u2014 16.\nHere the record fails to indicate that respondent had been informed of the nature of the proceedings. Neither the trial court nor counsel addressed respondent as to her rights at any time during the proceedings or prior to the adjudication of wardship. Similarly, the petition for adjudication of wardship failed to apprise respondent of the possibility of losing permanent custody of her child; the petition only requested temporary custody and \u201cother appropriate relief.\u201d Compare People ex rel. Jones v. Jones (1976), 39 Ill. App. 3d 821, 350 N.E.2d 826.\nIndeed, the record of the proceedings prior to the adjudication shows only a \u201cby-agreement\u201d temporary custody order entered at the detention hearing and later, at the adjudication hearing, the assistant state\u2019s attorney\u2019s statement to the court that \u201cthe mother wishes to make her admission at this time.\u201d The assistant public defender, who was not the same counsel who had represented respondent at the detention hearing, responded \u201cyes, * 6 \u201d as to environment injurious.\u201d The court accepted the admission without addressing respondent or determining whether counsel had addressed respondent or advised her of the nature of the proceedings.\nAccordingly, we believe that, under the circumstances of this case, a new adjudicatory hearing is necessary since there is nothing of record which would allow us to conclude that the mother was aware of the nature of the proceedings or her rights under section 1 \u2014 20 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 701 \u2014 20(1), (2), (3)), and we will not presume such an awareness from the mere fact that respondent was represented by counsel at the detention and adjudicatory hearings. See In re Starks (1978), 60 Ill. App. 3d 934, 377 N.E.2d 590.\nThe State, however, argues that the finding of neglect and adjudication of wardship is not a disposition of the case and therefore does not obligate the court to remove the child from the parents at the dispositional hearing. Thus, the State asserts, lack of information at the adjudicatory stage is not prejudicial. We reject this argument, however, since we believe the admonishment of rights and explanation of the proceedings is clearly necessary where the serious admission of neglect is entered and where that admission will necessarily be considered in the dispositional phase of the proceeding. If the parent is not aware of the right to contest the petition\u2019s allegations of neglect, an admission of neglect might well be prejudicial, particularly where the parent did not know and was not informed that permanent custody of the child could be lost at the dispositional hearing as a result of that very admission.\nWhile we are cognizant that the primary concern expressed by the Juvenile Court Act is the best interest of the child (In re Gonzales (1975), 25 Ill. App. 3d 136, 323 N.E.2d 42), the statute also expressly delineates the procedural rights of the party-respondent and \u201c * * * imposes a mandatory duty on the trial court to inform the parties of the nature of the proceedings. [Citations.]\u201d (In re Smith (1979), 77 Ill. App. 3d 1048, 1053, 397 N.E.2d 189, 193.) Under the circumstances of this case, we hold the court\u2019s failure to comply with section 1 \u2014 20 necessitates a reversal and a remand of the cause for a new adjudicatory hearing. Custody of the minor pending the outcome of the hearing is to remain with the present court appointed custodian or as the trial court shall otherwise determine pending the completion of the proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nJIGANTI and ROMITI, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE LINN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Ralph Ruebner and Susan Kaplan, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, James S. Veld-man, and Alphonse R. Tomaso, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re EVELYN MOORE, a Minor.\u2014(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JANICE MOORE BUCK, Respondent-Appellant.)\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 78-1675\nOpinion filed August 21, 1980.\nRalph Ruebner and Susan Kaplan, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, James S. Veld-man, and Alphonse R. Tomaso, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "1117-01", "first_page_order": 1139, "last_page_order": 1144 }