In re M.M., 72 N.E.3d 260

In July 2013 DCFS filed neglect petitions for two children (J.M., M.M.) after incidents involving the children’s father, Larry; respondent Heather M.’s whereabouts were initially unknown. Parties later stipulated the children were neglected due to an injurious environment and the court found Heather did not contribute to that environment.
An agreed protective order placed the children with paternal grandparents; DCFS sought guardianship at disposition. Respondent conceded wardship but asked for custody/guardianship herself and was found by the trial court to be a fit parent.
At the dispositional hearing the court nevertheless appointed DCFS guardian and placed the children with DCFS, stating placement was necessary but failing to state specific factual findings supporting parental unfitness, inability, or unwillingness.
The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that section 2-27(1) requires explicit findings that a parent is unfit, unable, or unwilling before custody/guardianship may be awarded to DCFS.
The State appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, arguing the trial court could place a ward with DCFS based on the child’s best interests even without a parental-unfitness finding; the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court and remanded for specific findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether section 2-27(1) permits placing a ward with DCFS absent a finding that the parent is unfit, unable, or unwilling	State: court may place a ward with a third party based on child’s best interests without first finding parental unfitness	Respondent: trial court already found her fit; no authority to displace her absent findings showing inability/unwillingness; placement improper	Court: Section 2-27(1) requires written factual findings that parent is unfit, unable (for reasons other than financial), or unwilling before committing a minor to DCFS; best-interest alone is insufficient
Whether the trial court’s placement order was fatally defective for lack of written factual findings	State: acknowledged remand for articulation but disputed requirement of unfitness finding	Respondent: urged immediate placement with her on remand, arguing law of the case that she is fit	Court: remand required for the trial court to articulate factual basis; respondent’s claim of law-of-the-case forfeited and not decided on merits

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parents have fundamental liberty interest; courts must defer to fit parents)
In re R.L.S., 218 Ill. 2d 428 (Illinois Probate Act respects parental rights by requiring findings of inability/unwillingness before overriding parent’s choices)
In re Madison H., 215 Ill. 2d 364 (section 2-27(1) concerns placement, not termination)
Williams v. Staples, 208 Ill. 2d 480 (statutory construction principles)
DG Enterprises, LLC-Will Tax, LLC v. Cornelius, 2015 IL 118975 (conjunctive statutory language should be given effect)
Wickham v. Byrne, 199 Ill. 2d 309 (parental liberty interest and statutory interpretation)