Plowman v. Department of Children & Family Services
2017 IL App (1st) 160860
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Michael Plowman was indicated by DCFS for neglect under Allegation No. 60 (injurious environment) after an investigation into domestic violence in the household with his children present.
- DCFS investigator Ida Lane and mother L.D. described repeated verbal and physical abuse of L.D., writing of derogatory messages throughout the house, and incidents the children witnessed or imitated; two children and a niece gave statements to the investigator.
- At the administrative hearing, L.D., Lane, and some child statements supported DCFS; the niece I.D. recanted parts of her prior statements and testified she was coached. Plowman denied abusing L.D. in the children’s presence but admitted writing some messages.
- The ALJ credited DCFS’s witnesses, found Plowman engaged in repeated domestic violence in the children’s presence, and recommended denial of expungement; the DCFS director adopted the recommendation.
- The Cook County circuit court affirmed the administrative decision; Plowman appealed, arguing: DCFS exceeded rulemaking authority (Allegation No. 60 is void), the ALJ’s factual findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the neglect determination was clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCFS exceeded statutory authority by treating adult domestic violence as an "injurious environment" under Allegation No. 60 | Plowman: Section 3 of the Reporting Act does not contemplate domestic violence between adults as a basis for neglect; Allegation No. 60 is void | DCFS: The statute’s plain language covers environments creating a likelihood of harm; domestic violence can create such an environment | Court: Allegation No. 60 is within DCFS authority; statute’s plain language permits finding neglect based on adult domestic violence witnessed by children |
| Whether the ALJ’s factual findings (credibility of witnesses and whether abuse occurred in children’s presence) were against the manifest weight of the evidence | Plowman: Investigator relied on notes, failed to produce photos, and witness statements were coached or recanted; findings are not supported | DCFS: ALJ is entitled to weigh credibility; statements were corroborated by multiple sources | Court: ALJ’s credibility determinations and factual findings are supported by the record and not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
| Whether the agency’s legal conclusion that the conduct amounted to neglect was clearly erroneous | Plowman: No evidence that the household conditions were likely to harm the children or that he blatantly disregarded parental duties | DCFS: Frequency, severity, and children’s exposure satisfy statutory and regulatory criteria for injurious environment and blatant disregard | Court: Given the total record and deference to agency expertise, the neglect determination was not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Julie Q. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 2013 IL 113783 (agency scope of power and deference in statutory interpretation)
- Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue, 236 Ill. 2d 368 (reviewing court reviews the agency’s decision, not the circuit court)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (standard for reviewing mixed questions of fact and law — clearly erroneous)
- In re A.A., 2015 IL 118605 (courts enforce clear statutory language and will not read in limitations the legislature did not express)