In re Abel C., 2013 IL App (2d) 130263

Seven-day-old Abel was taken into DCFS protective custody on Feb. 17, 2012; State filed a neglect petition alleging Abel’s environment was injurious to his welfare (three counts: siblings’ prior removals for which parents failed to cure; father an untreated sex offender).
At initial shelter-care hearing respondent (mother Shana) was offered court-appointed counsel, requested private counsel/continuance, was appointed conflict public defender Sloniker; she later waived shelter-care rights and DCFS was granted temporary custody.
Shana later obtained private counsel, then elected to proceed pro se before adjudication; the trial court repeatedly advised her of right to counsel, offered appointment, and confirmed her voluntary election to proceed without counsel.
At adjudicatory hearing the trial court found all three counts proved by a preponderance; the written adjudication initially lacked explicit factual findings, prompting limited remand to supply them.
On remand the trial court supplied findings focusing on: (1) prior sibling cases where Shana failed to complete ordered services and parental rights were terminated; (2) evidence that conditions causing siblings’ removal were not cured when Abel was taken into custody.
Trial court adjudicated Abel neglected and granted custody to DCFS; appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by allowing Shana to proceed pro se (waiver of counsel)	State: Shana knowingly waived right to counsel after being advised repeatedly; court properly accepted waiver.	Shana: waiver was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; court failed to conduct thorough inquiry or give admonishments analogous to criminal Rule 401; alleged borderline intellectual functioning rendered waiver invalid.	Court: No error — statutory right to counsel was explained; court repeatedly offered and encouraged counsel; refusal was voluntary; competency concerns and poor lawyering do not invalidate waiver.
Whether neglect adjudication was against the manifest weight of the evidence / whether written factual findings were required	State: Evidence (records from siblings’ proceedings and witness testimony) established that conditions leading to siblings’ removal were uncured, supporting neglect finding.	Shana: disputed service completion and competency of findings; initial written order lacked factual basis.	Court: Affirmed neglect finding on count I (single ground sufficient); ordered limited remand for express factual findings and, on review, found trial court’s factual findings supported by record and not against manifest weight.

In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d 441 (standard of proof and review for neglect adjudication)
In re Faith B., 216 Ill. 2d 1 (only one proven ground of neglect required to affirm adjudication)
In re Madison H., 215 Ill. 2d 364 (requirement that adjudicatory findings include factual basis for appellate review)
In re G.W., 357 Ill. App. 3d 1058 (need for findings of fact to enable appellate review)
People v. Silagy, 101 Ill. 2d 147 (right to proceed pro se is fundamental; courts should respect voluntary waiver of counsel)