People v. Anne G.
407 Ill. App. 3d 682
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- In 2005, the State petitioned to adjudicate wardship for B.G. due to neglect; Anne G. was incarcerated and allegedly failed to provide an adequate care plan.
- B.G. was adjudicated neglected and placed in DCFS guardianship with a goal of returning home within 12 months, later changed to substitute care pending termination.
- A petition for termination of parental rights was filed on June 25, 2007; a termination hearing occurred on August 11, 2008, with Anne G. absent and without a continuance.
- Evidence at the termination hearing showed extensive service-plan noncompliance, minimal proof of progress, multiple incarcerations, poor visitation, and ongoing substance abuse issues.
- The court found Anne G. unfit and concluded it was in B.G.’s best interest to terminate parental rights and appoint a guardian with right to consent to adoption.
- Anne G. appealed; the direct appeal affirmed termination, with lack-of-notice issues considered but not addressed on the merits; a subsequent 2-1401 petition sought postjudgment relief asserting lack of notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the 2-1401 petition | Anne G.: identical issues decided; final judgment on merits; same parties. | Public Guardian: res judicata applies; cannot relitigate unfitness and best interest. | Res judicata bars the 2-1401 petition; petition must be dismissed. |
| Whether law-of-the-case precludes relief beyond res judicata | Anne G.: law-of-the-case prohibits revisiting issues. | Public Guardian: law-of-the-case does not control postjudgment relief actions initiated anew. | Preclusion governed by res judicata, not law of the case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill. 2d 462 (2008) (res judicata requires final judgment, identity of cause, and identical parties)
- Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill. 2d 325 (1996) (elements of res judicata and bar of relitigation)
- Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill. 2d 95 (2002) (separate action context for postjudgment relief—preclusion principles apply)
- Miller v. Lockport Realty Group, Inc., 377 Ill. App. 3d 369 (2007) (law-of-the-case concept discussed in appellate preclusion)