2022 IL App (1st) 211505
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- M.M., born 2017, was adjudicated neglected and abused in August 2021 based on parents' alcohol abuse and domestic violence; DCFS became involved.
- Dispositional hearing was held remotely via Zoom on October 22, 2021; T.S. (mother) was incarcerated in Cook County Jail and appeared by Zoom under sheriff control; counsel (APD) appeared on screen.
- During the hearing T.S. requested a breakout room to consult counsel and, off the record, requested substitute counsel and sought to introduce documents; the court denied the request and warned T.S. not to interrupt.
- The court stated on the record that T.S. repeatedly unmuted/interrupted despite being muted by the Zoom host; the court then ordered T.S. removed from the proceeding and continued without her.
- The court adjudicated M.M. a ward and found T.S. "unable and unwilling" to care for the child; T.S. appealed, alleging violation of due process and statutory right to be present and asking for a Krankel inquiry into counsel effectiveness.
- The appellate court held the record sufficient, reversed and remanded for a new dispositional hearing (declining to rule now on the ineffective-assistance claim and declining to pre-judge parental-unwillingness).
Issues
| Issue | T.S.'s Argument | State/Public Guardian Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removing T.S. from the Zoom dispositional hearing violated due process and statutory right to be present | Removal was unjustified; interruptions did not amount to unrelenting abusive conduct; her mute status and incarceration limited any disruption | Removal was justified by off-the-record disruptive conduct; record incomplete without a bystander's report | Removal was improper because court did not explore available Zoom alternatives and mother had limited ability to disrupt; remanded for new dispositional hearing |
| Whether the appellate record is incomplete (need for bystander's report of off‑record events) | Court’s on-the-record summary of off‑record events was sufficient | Record incomplete; without bystander’s report appellate review is impossible | Court found the trial judge’s on-record summary adequate; declined to require a bystander’s report and reviewed the claim |
| Whether a Krankel (ineffective-assistance) inquiry is required now | Asked remand for Krankel inquiry into pro se claim of ineffective assistance | Did not oppose addressing on remand | Court declined to conduct a Krankel inquiry on appeal and left any inquiry to the trial court on remand |
| Whether appellate court should direct trial court to find T.S. not "unwilling" to parent | Asked this court to order a finding T.S. is not unwilling | Public guardian did not seek to affirm the "unwilling" finding but did not ask the appellate court to direct a particular finding | Court refused to prejudge the merits; remanded for a new hearing where the issue can be decided anew |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (Ill. 1984) (establishing procedure for addressing pro se posttrial claims of ineffective assistance)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due-process balancing test)
- In re Andrea F., 208 Ill. 2d 148 (Ill. 2003) (recognizing parents' fundamental due-process interest in custody)
- People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112 (Ill. 2020) (discussing refinement of Krankel procedures)
- People v. Roddis, 2020 IL 124352 (Ill. 2020) (further Krankel-related analysis)
- In re J.S., 272 Ill. App. 3d 219 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (juvenile proceedings must satisfy due-process and fairness requirements)