The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.

FIRST DIVISION

OCTOBER 9, 2001

No. 1-98-3715

IN RE K.C., K.C., S.C., S.C., T.D., and T.D., ) Appeal
from the Circuit Court

Minors,      ) of
Cook County, Illinois, Department

)  of Juvenile Justice and Child

) Protection Division 

) 

(The Department of Children and Family Services, ) Nos.
96 JA 6575, 96 JA 6576,

) 96 JA 6577, 96 JA 6578, 

Appellant;    ) 96 JA 6579, 96JA 6580

)  

K.C., K.C., S.C., S.C., T.D., and T.D., Minors, ) 

) The Honorable  

) Fe Fernandez

Appellees).    ) Judge Presiding  

)

JUSTICE TULLY delivered the
opinion of the court:

The Illinois Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) appeals from an order of the circuit
court directing DCFS to remove the team of caseworkers it assigned to
a case concerning the abuse and neglect of the minors K.C., K.C., S.C.,
S.C., T.D., and T.D. and ordering DCFS to assign a new team of caseworkers
to the matter.  On appeal, DCFS argues that the circuit court's
order should be reversed and vacated because : (1) the court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction and authority under the Juvenile Court Act
of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act or Act) (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. 
(West 1996)) to order DCFS to remove and replace caseworkers; (2) the
circuit court's action violated the doctrine of the separation of powers
under article II, section 1, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. 
Const. 1970, art. II, § 1). This court has jurisdiction pursuant to
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 301(134 Ill. 2d R. 301). We affirm for
the following reasons.

Background

On December 27, 1996, the
State's Attorney filed a petition for adjudication of wardship on behalf
of six minor children, K.C., K.C., S.C., S.C., T.D., and T.D., alleging
the children had been abused and neglected by their parents.  The
State's Attorney simultaneously filed a motion for temporary custody,
which motion the court granted, ordering that the minors be removed
from their home and awarded to the DCFS Guardianship Administrator,
and directing DCFS to prepare and file a case plan, pursuant to section
2-10.1 of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-10.1 (West 1996)). On
June 18, 1997, the court entered adjudication orders, pursuant to section
2-21 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-21 (West 1996)), finding the minors were
abused and neglected and at substantial risk of physical injury. 
On August 12, 1997, the court entered disposition orders, pursuant to
section 2-27 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-27 (West 1996)), adjudging the
minors wards of the court, finding the mother and fathers of the minors
unable and unwilling to care for, protect, train or discipline the children
and finding that no reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate
the need for removal of the minors from the home.  The court also
ordered the termination of temporary custody and, in the best interests
of the children, that the DCFS Guardianship Administrator be granted
custody of the minor children with the right to place them. The court
set the matter for a permanency planning hearing on October 22, 1997.

On October 22, 1997, the court
entered a continuance, and ordered that DCFS and caseworker William
Horton conduct an administrative case review and provide the parties
with a copy of the case review on or before December 18, 1997. On December
18, 1997, the case was  continued, and the court entered an order
to compel caseworkers William Horton and Edie Washington-Gurley, and
case management supervisor Leonard Johnson to provide the parties with
a current copy of the case plan by January 14, 1998, and to appear in
court to provide testimony and other evidence at the permanency hearing.
On January 28, 1998, the case was continued. On March 18, 1998, the
court again continued the matter, and entered an order to compel case
management supervisor  Leonard Johnson and caseworker Detrina Moore,
to appear in court on May 28, 1998 for purposes of a permanency hearing. 
On May 28, 1998, Detrina Moore appeared in court, but Leonard Johnson
did not. The Assistant State's Attorney made an oral motion that the
current team of caseworkers be removed from the case and a new team
of caseworkers be assigned because the current caseworkers had repeatedly
failed to abide by the court's orders. The court observed that the case
had been before it five times since October of 1997, and in spite of
repeated orders to compel, the caseworkers still had not performed an
administrative case review. The court entered and continued the Assistant
State's Attorney's motion to remove the caseworkers, made a finding
of no reasonable efforts against Leonard Johnson, directed that an administrative
case review be conducted by June 30, 1998, and ordered that all parties
be provided with a copy of the case plan by personal distribution in
court on July 1, 1998.

On July 13, 1998, the parties
appeared in court for the permanency review hearing. Case supervisor
Leonard Johnson and caseworker Detrina Moore were present. At the hearing,
Johnson testified that the goal of the current case plan was to provide
substitute care pending termination of parental rights. Detrina Moore
testified this goal was based on the children's mother's refusal to
participate in drug treatment programs and her expressed desire that
the children be adopted by relatives. Moore represented that although
the mother indicated she was not currently using drugs, no referrals
for random urine drops had been given to her. Moore also represented
that none of the three fathers of the children had been spoken to concerning
adoption. Moore further represented  that the youngest child, who
had been born drug exposed, had not received a one- to three-year-old developmental
evaluation. Based on these omissions, the Assistant