Plowman v. Department of Children & Family Services
2017 IL App (1st) 160860
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Michael Plowman was indicated by DCFS for child neglect based on an alleged injurious home environment (allegation No. 60) after reports that he committed domestic violence, wrote abusive messages, and engaged in other abusive acts in the family home.
- DCFS investigation included interviews by investigator Ida Lane of the mother (L.D.), niece (I.D.), and children (ages 5–12); Lane recommended indication based on domestic violence and the children being pulled into conflicts.
- At the administrative hearing, L.D., Lane, and Lane’s interview notes supported finding of domestic violence witnessed by the children; I.D. and Plowman gave testimony challenging those accounts.
- The ALJ found I.D. not credible, credited prior statements and the children’s corroboration, and recommended denial of Plowman’s expungement request; the DCFS director adopted that recommendation.
- Plowman sought judicial review in Cook County circuit court, which affirmed DCFS; Plowman appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court (1st Dist.), which affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCFS exceeded rulemaking authority by treating adult domestic violence as an "injurious environment" under allegation No. 60 | Plowman: §3 of the Reporting Act does not encompass domestic violence between adults; Rule 60 is void as beyond agency authority | DCFS: statute permits findings where a child’s environment creates a likelihood of harm and stems from blatant parental disregard; agency rule implements that statute | Held: Rule 60 is within DCFS authority; the statute’s plain language covers injurious environments caused by domestic violence |
| Whether ALJ’s factual findings (that Plowman abused L.D. in children’s presence) were against the manifest weight of the evidence | Plowman: Investigator Lane was unreliable (relied on notes, didn’t produce photos), interviews were coached, and witness testimony contradicted Lane’s notes | DCFS: ALJ is the factfinder; she observed witnesses, resolved conflicts, and had corroborating evidence from multiple interviews | Held: ALJ’s credibility determinations and factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence |
| Whether circuit court erred by considering new custody order evidence on review | Plowman: a March 2015 custody order supports that findings were against the evidence | DCFS: Administrative Review Law bars consideration of new evidence not presented to the agency | Held: New custody order could not be considered on judicial review; plaintiff may not introduce new evidence at this stage |
| Whether ALJ’s legal conclusion that Plowman’s conduct constituted neglect was clearly erroneous | Plowman: record lacks proof that home conditions likely harmed children or that he blatantly disregarded parental duties | DCFS: frequency, severity, children’s awareness, and lack of protective measures support neglect under statute and Rule 60 | Held: Agency’s mixed fact-law determination was not clearly erroneous given the record and deference to agency expertise |
Key Cases Cited
- Julie Q. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 2013 IL 113783 (agency power and statutory interpretation)
- LVNV Funding, LLC v. Trice, 2015 IL 116129 (agency actions void if beyond statutory authority)
- Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension Board, 225 Ill. 2d 497 (deference to agency credibility findings)
- Beggs v. Board of Education of Murphysboro Community Unit School District No. 186, 2016 IL 120236 (manifest-weight review of administrative factfinding)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (clearly erroneous standard for mixed questions of law and fact)
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (definition of the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard)
- In re A.A., 2015 IL 118605 (courts must enforce unambiguous statutory language)
- Nowak v. City of Country Club Hills, 2011 IL 111838 (statutory interpretation and legislative intent)
- Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue, 236 Ill. 2d 368 (appellate review is of agency decision, not circuit court)