*1 SMITH, OF (THE OF THE STATE re ANDREA PEOPLE Minor. — al., ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, Respondents- v. MARTIN SMITH et Appellants.) Fourth District No. 15581 CRAVEN, J., dissenting. Cole, Cole, (Dodd, counsel), appellants. Champaign
Paul R. Stout & Towler, Difanis, Attorney, (Marc D. of State’s of Urbana Thomas J. Commission, counsel), People. Attorneys Appellate for the Service opinion PRESIDING MILLS delivered court: appealability.
A must dismiss. wardship after finding This adjudi- at the presented that the evidence neglect. contend neglect. finding hearing support catory insufficient *2 however, was issue, appeal because notice of that We cannot address notice, jurisdiction to we are without timely not filed. Without appeal. the entertain what reveals:
Here’s the record 2, August 1978 Adjudicatory order — Dispositional order —November 28, appeal February Notice of — 2, appeal April Motion to late notice of — appeal file a late of on objected The State has to motion appeal. We it was filed moved to dismiss the the basis that not should be absolutely that the motion correct and conclude granted. that, speci 660(b) provides unless otherwise
Supreme Court Rule fically proceedings concerning Act provided, the Juvenile neglected governed applicable minors are the rules to civil cases. by to be (Ill. 1977, 110A, par. Stat. ch. The rules to civil 660(b).) applicable Rev. normally require judgment. to final Ill. Rev. Stat. appeals cases be from 1977, 110A, par. ch. 303. @2 cases, wardship is not juvenile adjudication generally In an of dispositional order appeal from which an lies. order. It is the (In However, re Lee 449, where App. 73 Ill. days of not within 90 the dispositional the order has been entered adjudicatory from appeal may of be taken the adjudication wardship, 1977, 110A, 662(a).) In such a the notice (Ill. par. order. Rev. Stat. ch. the 90 appeal days expiration days “shall be within 30 after the filed 110A, specified par. in this Stat. rale and not Ill. Rev. ch. thereafter.” 662(c). us, the days passed the case before more than 90 had between disposi entry and the wardship (August 1978) so,
tional order Rule 662 15,1978). being Supreme Court (November That adjudicatory the order triggered appeal was then notice of and the expiration 90-day of the days been within 30 of the had to have period i.e., 1978. was not. within 30 of October — for to file late
Supreme 303(e) Court Rule allows motions leave days of appeal reviewing filed with the court within 30 the be expiration filing (Ill of time Stat. ch. for Rev. 110A, par. 303(e).) the case present Notice should have been filed by 303(e) November 1978. But even if Rule were available to respondents in this case —a we do not decide because “not language thereafter” of Rule 662 —a motion leave for to file late notice of 30,1978. with this court had to have been filed Therefore, motion was not filed April untimely. The State respondents further contends the failed show failing reasonable excuse agree. for file notice of In answer to the State’s the appeal, motion dismiss counsel for had, occasions, respondents Judge stated Steigmann several on told him filing not to of appeal a notice because other counsel would be that purpose. Judge Steigmann stated that further he would have objection no to a notice being notwithstanding the expiration statutory time limit. to respondents’ Attached answer Judge Steigmann the affidavit of confirming allegations made respondents’ counsel. may
The statements of the trial have judge misleading been if, indeed, counsel. But any there a trial should little doubt — —that judge does not authority compliance excuse Huber v. requirements supreme governing appeals. court rules Maggio 31 Ill.
Even this court were to is from decide dispositional it (filed 15,1978), order November and was true that counsel *3 (as alleged did in not receive the order he his he still motion), waited more than 60 a notice of It was In re Wheat untimely therefore under appellate procedures. even civil Ill. (1979), 68 3d
Ergo, any yardstick, the notice of was too late. appeal here Accordingly, we dismiss the
Dismissed.
TRAPP, J., concurs. CRAVEN, dissenting: parents custody In this case and control of their rights litigants type children are involved. This is the of case wherein the are Boddie v. constitutionally (See entitled access courts. Connecticut 780.) L. An (1971), 401 U.S. Ed. 91 S. Ct. this, trial in is court civil but continuation case is as a every judgment and a civil proceeding Thus, are right. Rule 73 Ill. 2d R. (Supreme court, constitutionally they the trial are entitled to have access did not file a constitutionally appeal. They entitled to a misapprehension was not done because appeal, but clearly originated judge. trial This record establishes candor, which, with commendable judge, affidavit of the trial court recites that he had advised counsel not It is purpose. for that
appeal because other counsel would
appeal was not
clear
this record
the trial court and not because
misunderstanding
because of an error or
fairness
contrary
my
notion of fundamental
litigants.
simply
this
such circumstances. We
be dismissed
and
authority under
such circumstances
to allow a late notice
56;
People
v.
Keeney
should do so. See
45 Ill. 2d
People
v.
Brown
Ill.
In re ILENE LEON, Respondent-Appellant. 78-510
Second District No.