In re Q.P.
216 N.E.3d 1152
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- Q.P. (born May 2019) was adjudicated abused/neglected after birth exposure to controlled substances; DCFS obtained custody and set a permanency plan that later changed to termination/adoption.
- DCFS placed Q.P. with nonrelative foster parents (S.K.-M. and A.M.) in Illinois; the agency later sought to place him with his maternal aunt C.V. in Phoenix, Arizona via the interstate compact.
- DCFS’s clinical staffing and a Lutheran Social Services home study recommended placement with C.V. to increase sibling contact and preserve family ties; DCFS testified the move could be managed by a transition plan and would not disrupt therapies.
- The trial court held a best-interest/permanency-stage hearing and denied DCFS’s motion to place Q.P. out of state, finding any move contrary to the child’s best interest and that the current Illinois placement was "necessary and appropriate."
- The trial court, however, issued no written factual findings as required by section 2-28(2.5) of the Juvenile Court Act, instead denying the motion by order referring to the transcript and the court certified two Rule 308 questions for appeal.
- The appellate court held that (1) courts have authority under 89 Ill. Adm. Code 328.3(b)(1) to approve or reject out-of-state placements and (2) courts have authority under 705 ILCS 405/2-28(2.5) to find a planned placement unnecessary or inappropriate; but reversed the trial court’s denial because it failed to comply with the mandatory written-findings requirement of section 2-28(2.5) and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court may deny DCFS an out-of-state placement under 89 Ill. Adm. Code 328.3(b)(1) | State/DCFS: court should grant DCFS placement motion (or defer to agency) | B.V.: court must defer to DCFS unless placement would cause "manifest injustice" | Yes — code requires court approval and permits court to exercise discretion to approve or reject placement based on child’s best interest |
| Whether court may find planned placement not necessary/appropriate under 705 ILCS 405/2-28(2.5) and thereby prevent out-of-state move | State/DCFS: 2-28(2.5) does not displace out-of-state approval rule or is limited to ordering clinical recommendations | B.V.: court cannot designate specific placement; at most it can order DCFS to follow a clinician’s recommendation | Yes — 2-28(2.5) applies to current or planned placements (in- or out-of-state); court may find placement not necessary/appropriate and require an alternative recommendation |
| Whether the trial court complied with §2-28(2.5) procedural requirements when denying DCFS’s motion | B.V.: trial court's denial was factually and procedurally erroneous | DCFS: placement denial should stand as best-interest determination | Trial court erred procedurally — §2-28(2.5) mandates written factual basis and specific findings; denial reversed and remanded for compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Violetta B., 210 Ill. App. 3d 521 (court must prioritize child’s best interest in placement)
- In re Chiara C., 279 Ill. App. 3d 761 (court must remand to DCFS for plan changes when court finds plan inadequate)
- In re M.V., 288 Ill. App. 3d 300 (court lacks statutory authority to designate a specific foster home)
- In re T.S., 402 Ill. App. 3d 1159 (mandatory statutory directives using "shall" require court compliance)
- People ex rel. Madigan v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 231 Ill. 2d 370 (principles of statutory construction apply to administrative rules)