In re MADISON H., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Mandi H., Appellee).
No. 98533
Supreme Court of Illinois
Opinion filed May 19, 2005.
215 Ill. 2d 364
KILBRIDE, J., specially concurring.
Lisa
Susan O‘Neal Brosam, of Sullivan, for appellee.
Charles P. Golbert and Janet L. Barnes, of the Office of the Cook County Public Guardian, of Chicago, for amicus curiae Robert F. Harris, Cook County Public Guardian.
JUSTICE FITZGERALD delivered the opinion of the court:
In this appeal we determine whether section 2-27(1) of the
BACKGROUND
Respondent, Mandi H., and her husband, Jimmy H., are the parents of Madison H., born July 30, 2002, in Monmouth, Illinois.1 Hospital staff contacted the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) immediately after Madison‘s birth due to their concerns about the ability of respondent and Jimmy to care for the newborn. Both respondent and Jimmy are developmentally disabled. Following its receipt of a child abuse/neglect report on July 30, 2002, DCFS developed a safety protection plan. Under this plan, Mary Goodwin, respondent‘s stepmother, would live with respondent and Jimmy and provide primary care to Madison. The safety plan expressly stated that Mary‘s boyfriend was not permitted contact with Madison due to his prior criminal and child abuse history. On September 11, 2002, DCFS received a second child abuse/neglect report alleging that the safety plan was not being followed, and that Mary allowed her boyfriend to live in respondent and Jimmy‘s home. The child abuse/neglect report also alleged that Mary failed to properly care for Madison, resulting in Madison‘s hospitalization for a high fever and urinary tract infection caused by a kidney reflux condition. On September 12, 2002, DCFS took protective custody of Madison, and the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship alleging that Madison was a dependent minor and that
At the adjudicatory hearing, on November 22, 2002, respondent and Jimmy stipulated that Madison was a dependent minor who was “lacking adequate care because of the mental disability of her mother and father.” At the hearing, the State supported the stipulation with the following factual information: both respondent and Jimmy are moderately mentally retarded; respondent and Jimmy failed to follow the safety plan developed by DCFS; Madison was in need of ongoing medical attention and monitoring for her kidney reflux condition, and the failure to adequately care for her led to her hospitalization for a fever and respiratory infection on September 7, 2002; respondent and Jimmy were unable to monitor the temperature of Madison‘s formula and therefore unable to feed Madison; respondent and Jimmy were unable to monitor the temperature of Madison‘s bathwater and therefore unable to clean Madison; and despite numerous parenting classes both respondent and Jimmy were unable to retain information from one class to the next and therefore unable to learn proper parenting skills. The trial court found that both respondent and Jimmy had a developmental disability, and that Madison was a dependent minor based upon the stipulated facts. He ordered that respondent and Jimmy cooperate with DCFS and comply with the terms of the service plan. He further set the case for a dispositional hearing.
After several agreed continuances, on March 7, 2003, respondent appeared at the dispositional hearing with her attorney. Also present for the hearing were Jimmy, and his attorney; Jacqueline Bryant, a DCFS child welfare specialist; and Brandon Scott, respondent‘s 22-year-old brother. The court considered the testimony of Jacqueline Bryant, Brandon Scott, and respondent. Bryant recommended guardianship with DCFS due to respondent and Jimmy‘s inability to care for Madison‘s current needs. Bryant testified that despite their best efforts to learn from family support workers who provided them with weekly one-on-one parenting instruction, their cognitive ability made it unlikely that they could ever improve their ability to provide for Madison. Scott testified that he would live with respondent and Jimmy to supervise the care of Madison. He believed that respondent was capable of caring for Madison. He testified that on one occasion he left his infant son with respondent for several hours, and her care was satisfactory. Bryant testified that DCFS recommended against placement with Scott based on his work situation and his inability to transport Madison to medical appointments on a regular basis. Last, respondent testified about her desire to care for Madison and discussed the type of care she would provide to Madison if given the opportunity. Respondent testified that she had a book that told her how to care for Madison.
The court further considered several reports, including a home study report exploring placement with Brandon Scott; several client service plans prepared by DCFS; a diagnostic report prepared by Patty Cook of the Child Abuse Council, which included psychological evaluations prepared by Dr. Elizabeth Lonning; a psychological report prepared by Dr. Joseph Cress; and a parenting-assessment report prepared by Joe Terronez, a social worker. Based upon his observations of respondent and Jimmy with Madison, Terronez concluded that respondent and Jimmy‘s limited comprehension may cause Madison to be “at risk of harm if left alone with [respondent and Jimmy] without supervision.” Dr. Lon-ning reported that she questioned respondent‘s “ability to provide a safe and nurturing environment for her
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court adjudged Madison a dependent minor, made Madison a ward of the court, and placed guardianship in DCFS. The trial court‘s findings are recorded in a four-page preprinted dispositional order form and in brief statements in the record. In particular, at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge stated on the record:
“First I find that it is [in] the child‘s best interest that the child be made a ward of the Court. I find that the health, safety and in the interest of the minor, as well as the public, requires [sic] that the minor be placed outside the home. I find that the parents at this time are unable to care for, protect, train, properly discipline, although the child is not at an age appropriate for that at this point, but I am basing this on the ability of the parents, and that the child‘s health, safety and best interest would be jeopardized if the child remained in the parents’ custody at this time. I also find that services—appropriate services that would be aimed at preservation of the family[-]would be inappropriate at this time and that it would be in the best interest of the minor that custody and guardianship be given to D.C.F.S. with right to place.
[Respondent] and Jimmy, as [the assistant State‘s Attorney] stated, and I find this as well, every indication here is that you love Madison very much and I don‘t doubt that at all, and I don‘t doubt that you are trying your hardest to be the best parents that you can to Madison. I do have concerns about your skills at his [sic] point, the things that you‘re learning in your parenting classes. I think it sounds like you‘re cooperating, you‘re doing what you need to do. I think you need to have more of that and continue to educate yourselves on being good parents. So I am going to award guardianship with the power to place and right to consent to medical and dental care to D.C.F.S. Madison will remain in foster care at this time. I‘m also going to order that Jimmy and [respondent] be ordered to cooperate with the Client Service Plan and D.C.F.S.
[Respondent] and Jimmy, I need to tell you something else so this is really important so pay attention. It is important that you continue to cooperate with D.C.F.S. and any other agencies that they assign you to cooperate with. Your failure to comply with the service plan and continue to cooperate and correct the conditions which has made Madison a dependent minor could result in termination of your parental rights, and what that means is she could take your rights away as parent[s] and someone else would adopt the child. So it is important that you continue to cooperate with the agencies.”
In the preprinted dispositional order form, the court checked the box that respondent is “for reasons other than financial
Respondent appealed, arguing that the circuit court‘s finding was not supported by a written factual basis as required by section 2-27(1) of the Act. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new dispositional hearing and written order, holding that the plain language of section 2-27(1) requires that the dispositional order contain a written factual basis for its determination. 347 Ill. App. 3d at 1027. We granted the State‘s petition for leave to appeal. See
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, we address the State‘s contention that the issue in this appeal is waived because respondent failed to object to the trial court‘s failure to make a written finding at the dispositional hearing or in her posttrial motion. The record reveals that respondent did in fact raise the instant issue for the first time on appeal. The rule of waiver, however, is a limitation on the parties and not on the courts. In re Marriage of Sutton, 136 Ill. 2d 441, 446 (1990). Our concern for reaching a just result may override considerations of waiver. In re Timpone, 208 Ill. 2d 371, 382 (2004). Under the circumstances in the present matter, where the well-being of a child and parental rights are at issue, we elect not to apply the rule of waiver and will consider the case on the merits.
Article II of the Act governs proceedings involving abused, neglected and dependent minors. See
Our primary objective in construing section 2-27(1) is to give effect to the intent of the legislature, presuming the
“(1) If the court determines and puts in writing the factual basis supporting the determination of whether the parents, guardian, or legal custodian of a minor adjudged a ward of the court are unfit or are unable, for some reason other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train or discipline the minor or are unwilling to do so, and that the health, safety, and best interest of the minor will be jeopardized if the minor remains in the custody of his or her parents, guardian or custodian, the court may at this hearing and at any later point:
***
(d) commit the minor to the Department of Children and Family Services for care and service ***.”705 ILCS 405/2-27(1) (West 2002) .
Section 2-27(1) instructs that the court put “in writing” the factual basis for its finding. The Act does not define “writing” or set forth what type of “writing” is required. The State argues that a literal reading of the statute would yield an absurd result and unjust consequences not contemplated by the legislature, and that an oral statement on the record is consistent with the purpose of the statute. “In giving effect to legislative intent, the court should consider, in addition to the statutory language, the reason for the law, the problems to be remedied, and the objects and purposes sought.” People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159, 171-72 (2003). Thus, in construing a statute we consider other interpretative aids, such as the reason and necessity for the statute and the purpose served by it. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d at 172; People v. Whitney, 188 Ill. 2d 91 (1999).
The purpose of the Act is to secure care and guidance for minors and to serve the “safety and moral, emotional, mental, and physical welfare” of minors and the best interest of the community.
A dispositional hearing held pursuant to section 2-27(1) concerns the legal custody and guardianship of a minor and permits the removal of the child from a parent under the appropriate circumstances. See
With this in mind, we conclude that the writing requirement contained in section 2-27(1) exists to give the parties notice of the reasons forming the basis for the removal of the child and to preserve this reasoning for appellate review. Explicit oral findings stated during a dispositional hearing advise the parties of the basis for the removal of the minor and, once transcribed, provide an equal opportunity to review the validity of the findings on appeal as well as written findings contained in an order.2 Respondent‘s suggested interpretation of section 2-27(1) unnecessarily elevates form over substance and disrupts the adjudication of a minor for purely technical defects that do not prejudice the parties. In light of the Act‘s stated purpose and policy—securing permanency for minors in a timely manner—it is unlikely that the legislature meant to include the formalistic technical requirement suggested by respondent. In some jurisdictions, where resources are scarce, respondent‘s suggested interpretation has the potential to disrupt and delay the expeditious resolution of a minor‘s placement. Thus, we decline to adopt respondent‘s interpretation of section 2-27(1). In reaching this conclusion, we also draw upon several appellate court cases discussing separate provisions of the Act with similar writing requirements.
In In re Z.Z., the appellate court considered whether the absence of a written finding in an adjudication for neglect required reversal of the trial court‘s order. In re Z.Z., 312 Ill. App. 3d 800, 803-04 (2000). In particular, the appellate court considered section 2-21 of the Act, which provides that if the court finds that a minor is neglected “the court shall then determine and put in writing the factual basis supporting that *** determination.”
In In re S.E., the appellate court considered whether an oral ruling was sufficient to comply with section 2-28 of the Act. In re S.E., 319 Ill. App. 3d 937, 945 (2001). Section 2-28 provides, “[i]n selecting any permanency goal, the court shall indicate in writing the reasons the goal was selected and why the preceding goals were ruled out.”
“In light of the overwhelming volume of cases *** and the bare-bones support staff at the disposal of those [juvenile] courts, a court‘s oral pronouncement of its ruling should be viewed as sufficient to comply with section 2-28(2) of the Act if (1) those pronouncements appear in the record and (2) they would constitute a sufficient statement of the court‘s findings if the court had turned to the court reporter and requested that its oral pronouncement be typed up and printed in the form of an order. In other words, so long as something exists in the record stating the basis for the court‘s determination, the writing requirement should be deemed satisfied, regardless of whether the ‘writing’ was prepared by the court reporter or the court‘s administrative staff.” S.E., 319 Ill. App. 3d at 945.
See also In re Kenneth F., 332 Ill. App. 3d 674, 684-85 (2002) (holding that the trial court‘s oral ruling satisfied the writing requirement contained in section 2-28 of the Act because in its oral ruling the trial court specifically relied on DCFS and CASA reports, and these reports adequately contained the basis for the court‘s decision).
Finally, in In re K.S., the appellate court deemed explicit oral findings on the record sufficient to satisfy the writing requirement of section 2-31(2) of the Act. In re K.S., 317 Ill. App. 3d 830, 833 (2000). Section 2-31(2) provides, “[w]henever the court determines, and makes written factual findings, that health, safety, and the best interests of the minor and the public no longer require the wardship of the court, the court shall order the wardship terminated and all proceedings *** finally closed and discharged.”
Likewise, we also conclude that an oral finding on the record may satisfy section 2-27(1), provided that it is explicit and advises the parties of the basis for the court‘s decision. Therefore, we disagree with the appellate court‘s conclusion that section 2-27(1) requires that the written dispositional order contain the factual basis for the court‘s determination.
Finally, we note respondent‘s contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court‘s finding that custody and guardianship be given to DCFS. The State argues that respondent did not raise this issue on appeal, and directs our attention to the appellate court opinion: “In this appeal, respondent does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court‘s dispositional order. She argues only that the cause must be remanded *** because the court failed to comply with [the statute‘s writing requirement].” 347 Ill. App. 3d at 1026. Despite respondent‘s current creative efforts to recraft the issue statement contained in her appellate court brief as a sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument, it is abundantly clear that she did not argue the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Respondent‘s appeal was limited to the statutory writing requirement contained in section 2-27(1). Thus, by not objecting during the proceedings or raising the issue in a posttrial motion, or even on appeal to the appellate court, the respondent has forfeited this issue for purposes of our review. See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons we have discussed, we hold that an oral statement by the trial court on the record may satisfy the writing requirement contained in section 2-27(1) of the Juvenile Court Act, if the oral statement is explicit and advises the parties of
Affirmed.
JUSTICE KILBRIDE, specially concurring:
I write separately to emphasize this court‘s admonition that trial courts should either make written findings of fact or, at a minimum, transcribe and file their oral findings. As this court admonishes: “[w]hen a court makes an oral pronouncement of its findings on the record which is not otherwise reduced to writing, we strongly encourage trial courts, as a matter of practice, to order the statements transcribed and maintain a transcribed copy in the court file.” 215 Ill. 2d at 375 n.2. I steadfastly believe this practice should be applied in every case of this nature. As this court notes elsewhere, “the writing requirement contained in section 2-27(1) exists to give the parties notice of the reasons forming the basis for the removal of the child and to preserve this reasoning for appellate review.” 215 Ill. 2d at 374. I agree and, further, maintain that, even in the absence of an appeal, the reasons forming the basis for the removal of the child must be reduced to writing to provide the parties, social services, and the court with clear benchmarks for measuring future progress toward the goal of reunification.
I firmly adhere to the belief that our trial judges proceed in good faith, with the working assumption that parents need to make progress in reuniting the family. Therefore, although the majority has not adopted an unassailable standard requiring, in all instances, a written order or a written transcript of the findings underlying removal, I reassert this court‘s admonition in the strongest terms with the hope that all trial judges will provide clear written findings or written transcripts of those findings filed of record. By committing the court‘s findings to writing, the purpose of section 2-27(1) is fulfilled by giving parents and social service providers full, adequate, and practical notice of the target areas where improvement is needed. A clear statement of those areas is a critical component in working toward the goal of successful family reunification. Accordingly, I respectfully submit this separate opinion to clarify my support of the majority opinion.