People v. Tracie G., 941 N.E.2d 192

Petitioner-Respondent Tracie G. appeals a June 30, 2010 order terminating her parental rights to Darius G., arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that trial findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The court found a per se conflict of interest because the same public defender attorney (Herrmann) represented both Tracie G. and Darius at different times in the same termination proceedings.
Initial shelter-care and neglect proceedings began December 2007; Darius was placed in DCFS custody after a shelter-care hearing and later adjudicated neglected.
Throughout permanency reviews (2008–2009), Darius was represented by Kristin Anderson; Tracie G. was represented by different counsel over time, with late-arriving progress and several missed visits.
In May 2010 the State pursued termination for unfitness and prize sought to terminate parental rights; the court ultimately found unfitness (June 17, 2010) and then half-heartedly concluded best interests favored termination (June 30, 2010).
The majority reversed and remanded for new termination hearings with conflict-free counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Herrmann's dual representation created a per se conflict of interest	G. argues per se conflict due to prior representation by Herrmann of respondent and later Darius.	State contends no per se conflict; termination procedures in Juvenile Court Act are nonadversarial and conflicts must be shown.	Yes; per se conflict established; reversal and remand required.

In re S.G., 347 Ill.App.3d 476 (2004) (per se conflict in termination proceedings recognized)
In re D.F., 208 Ill.2d 223 (2003) (forfeiture and review standards in juvenile proceedings)
People v. Miller, 199 Ill.2d 541 (2002) (per se conflict inquiry origins)
People v. Hernandez, 231 Ill.2d 134 (2008) (per se conflict framework and undivided loyalty)
In re Johnson, 102 Ill.App.3d 1005 (1981) (right to counsel and undivided loyalty in juvenile cases)