*1 a tax lien the holder of provides that the Code 21—410 of Section demol- proceeding any action or party made a “shall be certificate has been property property where improvements destroy ish or not redemption has period of taxes and the pay failure to sold for 2006). (West 11— Additionally, section expired.” 35 ILCS 200/21—410 having persons “All provides: Municipal Code the Illinois 31—1 of *** shall including purchasers tax property, record interest of be served and shall petition in the [demolition] defendants be named as 2006). 31—1(d) (West Finally, the Peoria 65 ILCS process.” 5/11— of record or upon “all owners to be served requires notice city code recorded by documents interest as shown having an persons building is found to be recorder of deeds” when county office §5— Code Municipal demolition. Peoria subject dangerous 404(a) (1995). duty to code, had a city’s defendant law and the
Under both state demoli holder, impending a tax lien certificate notify plaintiff, Schwartz, 21 Ill. Terrace. See W. Columbia the house at 717 tion of made aware at 219. Defendant was 87, 315 N.E.2d App. 3d at lien search. Neverthe report identity and address plaintiffs duty its Defendant breached less, plaintiff. defendant never notified damages. plaintiff for liable to notify CONCLUSION County is affirmed. court of Peoria of the circuit The order Affirmed. O’BRIEN, JJ., concur.
CARTER (The Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R.W., People of the State Minor In re W., Respondent-Appellant).
Rebekah Third District No. 3 — 09—1028 June 2010.
Opinion filed *2 J., SCHMIDT, dissenting. Milot, Peoria, appellant.
Louis P for Lyons, Attorney, (Terry Kevin W State’s A. Peoria Mertel Richard Leonard, Attorneys T. Appellate Office, counsel), both of State’s Prosecutor’s People. JUSTICE McDADE opinion delivered the of the court: minor, R.W., trial adjudged daughter respondent, W, neglected Rebekah to be because of an environment (705 3(l)(b) (West 2008)). injurious to her welfare ILCS ap- On 405/2 — peal, argues the respondent adjudge court’s decision to neglected weight the manifest of the evidence. We reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND 18, April 26, R.W was born on 2009, 2002. On June Depart- (DCFS) ment of and Family Children Services filed petition alleging neglected injurious minor was environment, because of an based on allegations:
“A) (2) THERE HAVE BEEN PRIOR TWO REPORTS TO DCFS FOR DIRTY HOUSE CASES WHICH WERE UNFOUNDED AND A 2009, THIRD WAS CALLED IN MAY OF AND WHEN DCFS THE 12, WENT TO HOME ON MAY 2009 THE MOTHER WAS OUTSIDE, SAW THE RAN RE- WORKER AND INSIDE AND 22, FUSED ENTRY AND MAY WHEN DCFS WENT BACK ON 2009 THE MOTHER CAME OUT AND REFUSED ENTRY INTO THE HOME AND THE MOTHER ALLOWED AFTER ENTRY MAY 2009 AND THE UPSTAIRS HAD BEEN CLEANED BUT THE WHEN WORKER TRIED TO INTO THE GET BASEMENT IT THE AS DOWN STAIRS NO WAYTO GET [sic] THEERE WAS ITEMS; AND FULL OF WASPACKED B) JUNK IS A HOARDER WITH [sic] MOTHER THER TO IS UNABLE THE BACKYARDAND DCFS THROUGHOUT DUE THE BASEMENT [sic] OF THE CFONDITION ASCERTAIN THE BECAUSE OF NUMEROUS TO NO ACCESS AVAILABLE HOWEVER, THAT SHE PLAYS ITEMS; THE REPORTS MINOR WATER; THE DIRTY AND IN IN THE BASEMENT C) BY CODE 13, 2009, WASFINED THE MOTHER ON MAY HOME;AND OF THE THE CONDITIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT D) WITH DCFS.” TO COOPERATE THE MOTHER REFUSES hearing on October adjudication The court held mar- after she on March respondent testified 2009. The he had W, into the home where father, Rusty she moved ried R.W.’s residing Heights. in Peoria been after R.W.’sbirth
Rusty W. stated that increased. The and outside the house hoard items inside tendency to items, many of which were backyard became cluttered with porch and at- Rusty W would were broken. When duplicates and some of which items, and broken away duplicate tempt to throw the items attempt to retrieve upset him and would become would couple separated testified that away. W he thrown *3 testified 2007, out of the house. April when he moved W, who had backyard belonged to in the that some of the items separation. belongings these after not removed 2008, DCFS and December April that in stated Raelyn house. about the complaints her home with workers came to in reports that the two DCFS Galassi, investigator, testified a DCFS determined and unsafe were later cluttered 2008 that the house was up the home.” “cleaned unfounded after to be officer the code enforcement that he was Cary Wamsley testified Heights. He said Village of Peoria for the building inspector and warning for a code respondent a 2008, had in October he written residence. porch of the on the front concerning items stored violation 22, 2009, April on complaint a that DCFS received said Galassi [respondent’s] the condition of concerns about “[t]here were home, inside of possibly and home, there were rats outside *** some mold.” possibly and in the basement there was water condi- about the at her school talked with R.W Consequently, Galassi Galassi, stated that “[R.W.] According to the residence. tion of *** brown, dirty floor, it that was in on the the basement was water in it.” water, play and that she would date, a unspecified on he had received
Wamsley said neighbors “stating they saw complaint respondent’s from one of the Consequently, coming [respondent’s] property.” rodents from the Wamsley May he went home on when concerning large respondent warning wrote the amount of debris grass backyard, and tall and in the backyard driveway, weeds porch, plastic covering openings debris stored on the front porch. Photographs showing were admitted these warning garbage also conditions. The noted debris backyard one were hazard rodent infestation. Because no residence, Wamsley warning answered the door of the left on door.
Galassi stated that another DCFS worker went to the home on May 8, 2009, May but no one was to the home. Galassi went house on 11, 2009, and no one answered the door. When Galassi learned that R.W at May home because she was sick on Galassi went again. car, the home After parked Galassi she saw the respondent come out dog up house and “tie a outside.” When got car, house, Galassi out came out of the dog, retrieved the and went back inside the home. When Galassi times, on knocked the door several no one Galassi answered. observed plastic covering porch “[t]here was that was half like just then there was a lot of garbage piled up stuff on the porch.” Galassi stated that later on May called her and said that she could return and look at the house. Galassi told the respondent that she would May 13, return to the house on 2009. May 13,
Galassi testified that when she returned on ac- companied by Wamsley.Wamsley testified that he returned to the house May warning 13 to May follow on he had written on occasion, 7. Wamsley On this backyard observed that the was “[b]asi- debris, cally containers, full of garbage, junk, toys[,] plastic cardboard boxes, everywhere, debris strewn tall grass May and weeds.” On Wamsley issued a respondent, fining citation to the her for failing clean up warning. the items that he had noted in A May copy citation was admitted evidence. testified,
Galassi that on she saw that there were several date, items stacked the interior of the house. this walls On Wamsley both and Galassi were unable to view the basement because *4 large number stairway. of items stacked in the basement’s Ga- testified, however, upstairs lassi that the of the house was clean. Wams- ley stated that the stairway blocked basement was a hazard prevented it because access to the furnace water heater case respondent fire. When Galassi told that she needed to view agreed Galassi told the basement, respondent cooperate. May 22, inspect she return on respondent that would basement. May 14, help with the of a respondent
The testified that on friend, May she stairs to the basement. She said that on cleared the respondent the backyard. she cleared the debris from The thereafter, respondent kept backyard mowed. The testified that temporarily leaked into the base- May also stated that 2009 water spring. that The ment because there had been excessive rainfall up respondent mopped said she and friends the water basement. the home
Wamsley May testified that on he returned to backyard found had been cleaned and that home testify did not that he Wamsley had no code note that violations. We respondent’s rats or of rats on the had ever observed either property. respondent
When Galassi returned on said attorney, inspect advice she would not allow Galassi to Following respondent’s refusal to home a search warrant. without home, presented inspect Rusty W with a allow Galassi to Galassi from the safety plan provided for the removal R.W. DCFS allowing W R.W.to have respondent’s prohibited care and from respondent. with the We note the record shows DCFS contact having the trial court for either an this without asked took action (see (West 2008)) hearing emergency shelter care ILCS 405/5—501 concerning custody. any order R.W’s or other for and Sandra Lukehart testified Both Tina McKean they helped women testified that had respondent. Both house, including Both women organize the basement. clean standing water basement testified that muddy dirty. The women clear and sometimes was sometimes was mop up helped the water. they also testified that adjudication hearing, the court announced At the conclusion of the history that the had its decision. The court considered involvement, including The court found reports. two unfounded DCFS minor, which environment for the that the lacked a suitable residence on numerous occa- brought attention DCFS had that, although took corrective court noted sions. The occasions, problems recur- the environmental were actions on various ring. op- given Wamsley observed that court the house in and around correct the unsafe conditions
portunity to further observed that violations. citing her code before
1105 22, 2009. entry DCFS to the house the refused stairway had been blocked with The court noted that the basement occasion, The items least one which was an unsafe condition. on at a Rusty testimony court W.’s the was considered and hoarder, photographs porch of the by which was corroborated backyard, testimony as well as the of several witnesses. played found to that she had report
The court that R.W’s Galassi testimony in dirty corroborated of water basement was that, times, dirty at water witnesses totality The found of the considering basement. court circumstances, of the proved by preponderance the State had a injurious neglected evidence that R.W.was of an because environment. dispositional The court issued its order on 2009. In November order, disposi- the court found both the and W tionally fit of guardians and made both them of R.W.The court made court, a assigned parents, R.W. ward of the to tasks R.W.’s and ordered counseling. respondent appealed, R.W.receive without hav- ing posttrial filed a motion.
ANALYSIS
contends that
adjudge
the court’s decision to
R.W
neglected
against
be
weight
the manifest
of the evidence.
A
may
neglected
be found
her
injurious
if
environment is
(West 2008).
3(l)(b)
her
705
welfare.
ILCS
On
a
appeal,
trial
405/2 —
finding
court’s
of neglect will not
against
be reversed unless it was
weight
B.,
manifest
of the
re
evidence. In
Faith
216 Ill. 2d
832
(2005).
N.E.2d
152
A
ruling
weight
court’s
is
the manifest
of
if
only
opposite
clearly
conclusion is
evident. Faith
B.,
216 Ill. 2d
Generally,
neglect
juvenile
of a
is defined
aas failure to exercise
the care
H.,
circumstances
In
Ill.
warrant.
re Arthur
212
2d
(2004).
441,
We observe statute at issue is contained within (705 (West (Act) Court seq. Juvenile Act of 1987 ILCS et 405/1—1 2008)). is, The stated purpose pertinent part: the Act *** (1) subject [T]o secure for each minor hereto care and such home, guidance, preferably his or own as will serve the mental, moral, emotional, physical welfare of the safety community; preserve of the minor and the best interests strengthen family possible, removing minor’s whenever ties custody parents only him or her of his or her when his or from protection public or welfare cannot be adequately safeguarded without removal ***. (2) may Act the proceedings In all under this direct the jurisdictional promptly to ascertain the facts course thereof so as fully bearing upon the current condition gather information persons subject to this Act. This Act shall be and future welfare of concern, only spirit rights in a not for the administered humane parties, but also the fears and the limits understand- ing appear of all before court. who *6 (3)
(c) custody parents’ right the of their child shall not to contrary prevail when the court determines that it is to the health, safety, best of the child. and interests (4) carry forego- the liberally This be construed to out Act shall added.) ILCS ing purpose policy.” (Emphasis 705 405/1—2 2008). (West (2006). O.S., App. Ill. 130 In See also In re 3d N.E.2d words, parents one of the Act is to assist who have purpose other parenting may in that flaws be cor engaged allegedly flawed so their adequately are ensuring that their children safe and rected while cared for. case, prior adjudications that no
In this we note there were respondent’s cooperation requiring there no court orders with were neglect petition by also that the time DCFS filed the DCFS. We note environment, problems regarding on June the R.W.’s which longer problems. in alleged were occurred were no have petition Indeed, allegations the filed the of the day on it was most of outright misleading significant because factual were either false fact, intended, In Act had worked as it was inasmuch as omissions. the porch, base- respondent apprised problems had been with risk, may her at and she backyard placed ment and that have there two earlier al- Specifically, remedied the had been problems. had that to be unfounded legations dirty of a house determined were Following the house. this third respondent up had cleaned because house, friends cleaned and of a allegation dirty basement, backyard. house, including as well as organized the backyard, been clutter in the Although there evidence there had was W, belonged Rusty clutter that some of this testified separation. Moreover, following couple’s it who had not removed filed, petition backyard by that the time the was record shows up problems clutter been and other with the house had had cleaned been remedied. reported that
Although played Galassi testified that R.W. she basement, dirty allega- was confirm this water DCFS unable to blocking stairway tion the basement condition because items —a Nonetheless, testimony has been corrected. was mopped rain and it had spring water was caused excessive been up by petition filed. friends before the was acknowledge was
We record shows that violations, However, alleged neglect petition. fined for as code Wamsley’s testimony resulting in the fine showed the conditions petition cleaned more than a before the filed. been month was
We further that there no of the respondent’s observe DCFS, lack of cooperation alleged petition. Although as the respondent initially entry May 12, refused DCFS home on sick, daughter when her was home she called Galassi later that day and entry following day. allowed told respondent also Ga- lassi that could on May but, enter home her at- torney’s advice, she later withdrew her earlier consent to a search of warrant, her home get without a warrant. DCFS elected not to choos- ing go instead behind back plan to execute a divorcing with the husband who was her —a plan that removed the child from the mother any without court involvement.
Wenote
right
had constitutional
to withdraw
her earlier consent and to insist that DCFS obtain a warrant. See
*7
People
Priming,
App.
v.
Ill.
(2009);
389
3d
In summary,
allegations
injurious
all of the
of an
environment in
the neglect petition
had been
petition
cleaned
before the
filed.
was
Consequently,
finding
we hold that
neglect
the trial court’s
of
was
weight
opposite
the manifest
of the evidence because the
B.,
conclusion
clearly
was
evident from the record. See Faith
216 Ill.
2d
152. The
that
N.E.2d
court’s observation
this had been a
recurring problem
relapse
specula
does not make a fear of
more than
Furthermore,
tive.
finding
contrary
purposes
this
was
to
of the
of
one
(West 2008); O.S.,
the Act. See 705 ILCS
364 Ill.
3d
App.
405/1—2
CONCLUSION reasons, judgment For the we of the Peoria foregoing reverse neglected County adjudging circuit R.W. to be and remand the this proceedings opinion. cause for further consistent with Reversed and remanded. J.,
WRIGHT, concurs. SCHMIDT, dissenting:
JUSTICE respondent keeps filthy record house and a The shows authorities, yard. temporarily cited by rodent-infested When cor- things living rects and then the conditions recur. There is a person The majority under these conditions. holds no reasonable child. injurious find these create an environment for a could facts help parent learn respondent appropriate The idea of the Act is to The Parenting housekeeping majority’s skills include skills. ing skills. recurring problem “that had been a does not make a conclusion this relapse speculative” defies common sense. 401 Ill. fear of more than App. 3d at 1107. respect to allow confirm the
With to failure DCFS to basement, there is majority points out that no condition alleged do so. requiring court order to It was allegation There cooperate failed with DCFS. is no contempt violating court for a court order. guilty of of requiring is also order By way example, of no court effect prior minor child. The absence of a court order feed her nothing neglected whether or not the child was or has do with cooperating taking appropri- or whether the otherwise action toward the care of the child. ate by It finding neglect supported
The court’s is the evidence. is develop undoubtedly step helping respondent ap- the first toward her child. This parenting skills for welfare of propriate neglect finding, with the intent the Act. Without is consistent powerless help respondent is child. the court find person could that a majority’s finding The no reasonable neglect guilty in a home is not keeps filthy who a child parent injurious defies all reason. What providing environment virtue or others fail to this the code enforcement officer happens child when help The needs respondent obviously to observe conditions? provide in motion to skills. The trial court the wheels parenting put stop to that. majority put has help. her with trial court. its for that of the majority judgment substitutes *8 I, therefore, dissent. of review. ignores appropriate standard This