2015 IL App (4th) 150260
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Tara A. Bullock is mother of three children (S.B., E.B., I.B.).
- State petitions on March 10, 2014, sought adjudication of neglect and wardship for the children.
- Adjudicatory and dispositional hearings were scheduled for February 26, 2015, at the Adams County courthouse.
- Bullock was to be transported from Logan Correctional Center; heavy snowfall delayed arrival.
- At 9:35 a.m., the court proceeded with hearings in Bullock’s absence; her attorney objected to proceeding.
- Dispositional order made the children wards of the court; Bullock arrived after hearings had begun, and other parties had left.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a continuance violated due process | Bullock argues due process was violated by proceeding without her. | State contends denial was discretionary but not due process error. | Reversed; denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether proceeding in Bullock's absence at adjudicatory and dispositional hearings violated due process | Bullock asserts due process requires waiting for her arrival if feasible. | State argues timely proceedings were in minors’ best interests and continuance not required. | Remanded for new adjudicatory hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.R., 316 Ill. App. 3d 399 (2000), 316 Ill. App. 3d 399 (Ill. App. 2000) (contends continuance denial not a due-process issue (Mathews factors discussed elsewhere))
- In re C.J., 272 Ill. App. 3d 461 (1995), 272 Ill. App. 3d 461 (Ill. App. 1995) (continuance due-process considerations in parental-rights context)
- Benton v. Marr, 364 Ill. 628 (1936), 364 Ill. 628 (Ill. 1936) (denial of continuance generally not a due-process issue)
- Nixon v. Harris, 31 Ill. App. 3d 204 (1975), 31 Ill. App. 3d 204 (Ill. App. 1975) (ends of justice and continuances may justify granting a continuance)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (liberty interests in child custody protected by due process)
- In re E.H., 224 Ill. 2d 172 (2006), 224 Ill. 2d 172 (Ill. 2006) (reminds court to decide on nonconstitutional grounds where possible)
- People v. Buckles, 24 Ill. 2d 520 (1962), 24 Ill. 2d 520 (Ill. 1962) (continuance-denial precedents cited in the due-process discussion)