*1 commercially used addition, the tolerances for that while he testified scales, more than for enforcement stringent law tighter scales are performed stringent. The tests mean the tests are less does not tests are very stringent, but the differ- on law enforcement scales are He testified that performed ent from on commercial scales. those range of mainte- acceptable report indicates the scale was within testimony some of the tests nance Colbrook’s indicates that tolerance. test, tests for radio buildup test, repeatability performed were electromagnetic interference. frequency interference record, correctly found we trial court From the conclude weight of the proper that the for the admission State laid foundation Kautz, found tickets from scale No. 270. Unlike the circumstances 775-76, more than one test 3d at 651 N.E.2d at here performed on scale and the scale was retested Officer No. up designated Owens location weighing after it was set at the therefore, day question. conclude, We that the trial court did not in admitting weight abuse its discretion into evidence. tickets
III. CONCLUSION Based on the conclude foregoing, we that the did not limine, abuse discretion when it denied defendant’s motion in we affirm judgment the trial court.
Affirmed. KNECHT, JJ.,
CARMAN concur. (The Illinois, al., People In re Minors E.B. et State Petitioner- Burns, Appellee, Respondent-Appellant). v. Robert Fourth District No. 4 — 99—0596
Opinion filed June
McCullough, J., dissenting. Borich, P.C., Webber, Urbana, Peter appellant. T. of Beckett & of for (Norbert Piland, Attorney, Goetten, John C. State’s of Urbana J. J. Robert Biderman, Majors, Attorneys and James C. all of Appellate State’s Prosecutor’s Office, counsel), People. of for the Brown, Offices, J. Champaign, Sherman of Sherman J. Law of Brown guardian ad litem. JUSTICE opinion MYERSCOUGH delivered of court: In neglect stipulated peti- October alleged tion that her in an injurious children were environment exposed because she of Respon- children the risk sexual abuse. dent father on the neglect petition waived to the judicial taking stipulation. notice (705 (West court continued the case under ILCS 405/2—20 1998)) agreement at the recommendation of the State and the of all parties. or adjudicatory entered sponte court sua the trial neglected. children respondents’ finding der filed, had been of the case continuance
terminate 705 ILCS held. See had been terminate hearing to and no 1998). 20(5) (West held a 1999, the court 405/2— custody and and removed neglected, the children hearing, found them with placed parents guardianship (DCFS). Respondent Family Services of Children Department interests of in the best not that removal was arguing appeals, Rule 615 Court Supreme and remand We reverse the children. 615) continuance court terminated the trial Ill. 2d R. because in a order and entered 20(5) of the Juvenile inconsistent with section that was manner (West 1998)). (Act) (705 ILCS Act of 1987 Court 405/2 —
I. BACKGROUND removing custody the trial court’s appealed Both father) and (respondent Nos. 4—99—0596 guardianship, docketed mother). only opinion This addresses (respondent 4—99—0612 relating to the Facts No. 4—99—0596. appeal, clarity. purpose for the mother are discussed biological parents Burns are the Christa and Robert Respondents W.B., December E.B., 25, 1992, and born September born prior of abuse following five indicated DCFS received *3 in this case. filing neglect petition the inade- alleging 1995, report received a hot-line In March DCFS being intoxicated while respondent due to quate supervision 1996, an ad- In DCFS received for the children. March babysitting by re- of harm to the children report alleging risk ditional hot-line spondent father. alleging that 1997, report a hot-line DCFS received September
In family file on the opened E.B. DCFS sexually an uncle molested report. to the response October inadequate report alleging 1998, DCFS a hot-line received respondent the children based on supervision of inappropriate sexually acting five-year-old E.B. inability prevent to
mother’s three-year-old out W.B. with alleging report 1998, additional hot-line DCFS received an July
In offender a convicted sex because harm to E.B. and WB. risk of sexual the children. resided with to pursuant petition 1998, filed a two-count August
In 3(l)(b) (West 1998)), (705 3(1)(b) the Act ILCS section 405/2 — their welfare injurious to was that the children’s environment alleging (count exposed because the environment the children to sexual abuse I) (count II). and alcohol abuse 1998, trial September hearing. the court held a shelter-care The probable allegations court found cause for petition the set an adjudicatory However, custody of the children remained with respondent mother.
In October the trial court an adjudicatory hearing. held Re- spondent initially to to stipulate petition on the condition case would continued under supervision pursu- be (West 1998)). ant to section 2—20 of Act ILCS The 405/2—20 trial court not accept stipulation, however, would conditional because it wanted know to the facts the case agreeing supervision. before The trial court also informed the parties that their decision to stipu- late to the or facts waive a completely independent from, on, impact would have no whether the court continued the case under supervision. counsel,
After additional respondent discussion with mother once again agreed stipulate count response, I. In the State struck re- spondent father’s name from count I of the and withdrew count Respondent II. father then waived hearing on count agreed to the court taking judicial notice stip- ulation. The court continued matter under at the rec- agreement ommendation of the with parties. State and of all The trial court its based order the case under on that respondents “cooperate fully condition completely [DCFS].” The then set the matter for a status review in April 1999.
The docket entries at least in April show two continuances docket entries reveal that mother’s counsel was un- available for the first date review and that father was un- available at the second date. review The trial continued the mat- ter until May 1999.
In May attorney again father’s moved for a con- tinuance because DCFS failed to file time. transcript reveals party objected motion, the court continued the until matter June 1999. No other issues were discussed.
Later same day May inexplicably entered an adjudicatory finding “[b]y preponderance of the ev- evidence, convincing idence and clear and the minors have *4 injurious environment to their welfare reason of said environment expos[ing] respondent [because] the minors to risk of sexual abuse [knowing Skaggs was] Robert that convicted Skaggs, allowed
703 minimum of minors for a molester, in the home with the to live child filed any party had entry reveals that no docket two weeks.” nothing respondents’ to terminate entering to the court hearing place prior took record indicates that in the case. terminating supervision its order hearing. The trial held a the trial court May, April, dated reports if had received DCFS’ court asked each they had asserted that respondents’ and June 1999. Both counsel additions, corrections, or additional and had no reports received the to present. evidence history briefly to date and reviewed reports
The described the case informed previously reports. reports indicated The also described aggravated bat- pleaded guilty father had respondent the court that on serving eight-year an sentence tery to a child and was at that time in April due to be released Respondent that offense. father was The that father maintains his innocence. reports respondent stated separate reports
The that indicated reports also revealed two children were filed involving paramour’s (1) May to a child in against respondent father for sexual abuse (2) father as- Respondent risk of harm to a child March 1996. serts, however, that he received notice of these previously never reports planned filing appeal indicated with DCFS because he the factual disputed basis for each. May by expressing and June 1999 concluded concern counseling
over lack of father had received while May report specifically suggested incarcerated. The consequence father’s denial and his and the minimization of behavior posed significant problem. his behaviors recommended custody to DCFS guardianship primarily be awarded based (1) on the fact that father had received no services and charged continued to maintain innocence on the offenses and (2) indicated mother continued to believe in reports, reintegrate her husband’s innocence and her husband into desired family upon his release from prison. rendering dispositional hearing, Prior to its decision at the court stated: counsel, if I
“The—first of all I don’t know mentioned this. This enter an has been continued several times. did copies got in this back on 1999. I don’t know if cause just verify All All that. right. They right. distributed. did? want matter, ]up clean[ Second I don’t if I—when we had the know possibility as to the the court initial my wishing if I for not specifically enunciated reasons sion^] grant supervision matter, thought this so I I would at least *5 today. review that all, objection First of there was an by parties, one of the and
obviously any possibility that knocks out but for the record, sake of the will also note that believe the may doing could, mother enough have been all that she but that was not point.
at that previously case had been supervi- sion for six months and had not been resolved.” The court then asserted that it concurred with the more recent DCFS reports’ regarding concerns continuing relation- ship father.
Immediately following the comments, court’s with the court’s reasons for previously terminating continuance of the supervision case under and asserted that “the court has to find both of these parents unfit.” The State asked the court to adopt the June report’s recommendations and custody remove of the children from respondent mother. The court’s recall of regarding events the continu- ance of the unchallenged by went the parties, however, though even clearly record demonstrates that no objected until the
Shortly after the dispositional hearing concluded, the trial court entered a written order finding the children neglected and making each a ward of the court. The court further found “unfit for alone,” reasons other than financial circumstances and that it was in the best interests of the children to remove custody re- spondent parents. The trial court then set a permanency hearing for December 1999. Respondent appealed.
II. ANALYSIS The basic issue before this court is may whether a trial court terminate continuance of a case under under section 2—20 without a petition to terminate continuance under supervision having been filed or a hearing on such a petition having Although been held. by father, not raised this by respondent matter was raised (No. 99—0612). mother in the companion appeal We address this 615) Supreme issue under Court Rule 615 Ill. 2d R. and hold that may a court not do so.
The preeminent rule of statutory
give
construction is to
effect to
the language
Hicks,
and intent of the legislature. People v.
164 Ill. 2d
(1995).
218, 222,
257,
647 N.E.2d
259-60
To accomplish
goal,
this
words
statutory
used
provision
given
plain
should be
their
ordinary meaning. Hicks,
705 (1997). are to be 854, 855 Statutes 46, 46-47, 679 N.E.2d App. Ill. 3d Marriage or void. In re superfluous is so that clause construed (1997). In ad 994, 1001, Stevens, 3d 687 N.E.2d 292 Ill. intend an did not legislature that the dition, a court must assume Coleman, 2d 652 N.E.2d v. People absurd result. (1995). indicates that the plain language of the statute entered its terminated case 2—20 of the Act. Section adjudicatory order violation of section 2—20 states: “(1) may order of continuance under The court enter an (a) by appropriate re- upon stipulation an admission or sion *** spondent supporting of the facts before adjudication, after the evi- findings or adjudicatory hearing noting in the minutes
dence at the but before abused, not the minor is ne- proceeding finding of whether or (b) objection in the absence made glected dependent; or minor, custodian, respon- open parent, guardian, *6 relative, Attorney. attorney!),] sible defense or the State’s (2) minor, custodian, rel- parent, guardian, responsible If the ative, Attorney, objects open in attorney!),] defense or the State’s any upon court to such continuance and insists to find- proceeding ings adjudication, proceed. the court shall so continuance under (5) If a petition is filed charging a [*] the court shall conduct * * violation of a condition of the a supervision has not been such condition If finds adjudication fulfilled[,] may proceed findings the court to (West 1998). added.) disposition." (Emphasis 705 ILCS 405/2—20 20(1) any objec- plain language clearly requires of section 2— supervision open imposi- tion to must be made in court “before” the supervision. party objected tion of to continuance of supervision case under here until after the court terminated continu- ance under and entered its order. addition, only imposed condition that the trial court supervision required respondents “cooper- under to 20(5) fully ate of the Act completely [DCFS].” Section 2— has states that the court finds that such condition of “[i]f fulfilled[,] adjudication may proceed findings not been the court to 20(5) (West 1998). However, sec- disposition.” 705 ILCS 405/2 — 20(5) hearing” tion that “the court conduct a requires also shall 2— prior making finding noncompliance to with a condition 20(5) (West 1998). sion. 705 ILCS 405/2— clearly The court to determine whether did not hold parents were cooperating fully and completely prior with DCFS to terminating respondent’s Instead, supervision. judge trial sua sponte terminated the continuance in response to the May report 1999 status from DCFS. The trial court terminated supervision, therefore, continuance under prior any objection to open court —without the benefit of a alleging a violation of a condition and without the benefit of hearing to determine any allegations whether status were true. process
Due requires adequate notice to a parents prior minor’s to juvenile proceeding. C.L.T., In re 3d 706 N.E.2d (1999). 5(1) 123, 129 Section of the Act states that the of a 1— subject minor who is to a right the Act have “the present, heard, be present be evidence material to the proceed ings, witnesses, to cross-examine pertinent [and] to examine 5(1) (West 1998). files and records.” 705 ILCS The court’s ac 405/1— tions, therefore, were inconsistent with both section and sec 2— -5(1), tion because it terminated continuance of the case under supervision without notice opportunity or an to be heard.
The trial court’s alarm the face of this situation is understand- Regrettably, able. the State did not undertake appropriate action to terminate the supervision. However, continuance under the Act requires respondents provided be with notice and a hearing as to respondents whether any violated prior terminating conditions continuance of the supervision. remand, On may file petition to terminate the continuance under supervision and proceed accordingly.
III. CONCLUSION For above, the reasons stated we reverse and judg- remand the ment of the trial court.
Reversed and remanded.
COOK., P.J., concurs. *7 McCULLOUGH, JUSTICE dissenting: On June Attorney, guardian the State’s ad litem (GAL), the respondent mother and her attorney, father attorney, and his and DCFS by attorney present were before the court. The court stated the cause was “called for dispositional hear- ing.” The trial entry court then stated the of the adjudicatory 1999. It then reviewed various reports that had been filed. State, GAL, In response, the attorney, additions, cor- they stated that had “no attorney given opportunity Each an party rections or additional evidence.” and make recommendations. The reports to address the expansive concerning statement its order then made a detailed parties right ap- of their appointing guardian, DCFS as advised matter for a peal, permanency and set the parties objected None of the with the any fail- hearing. Respondent objection made no then or now ure to 2—20 raised sua comply with section Act. issue is sponte by majority suggests this court. The that no was held concerning cooperation with DCFS. believe DCFS, review of the record shows the trial court had the parties’ input respect reports, had the benefit of all the to those evidence, each provided opportunity present an additional findings. and made its detailed The trial court’s actions were not in- 20(5) 5(1) par- consistent with section or section of the Act. The 2— 1— given heard, ties present, opportunity given were to be all of rights forth in section set Act. affirm the trial would court’s decision. HOOVER, Petitioner-Appellee, In re MARRIAGE OF DIANA LYNN HOOVER, Respondent-Appellant. DON HERBERT Fourth District No. 4 — 99—0608
Opinion filed June