Failure of Ward of Court to Engage in Services Not Basis to Close Guardianship Case

In re Aaron L. 2013 IL APP (1^st) 122808

In 1994, one-year old minor was adjudged a ward of the court.  He was placed in several foster homes.  During that time the circuit court made several findings the DCFS failed to make reasonable efforts to achieve permanency. 

            In 1999 the court appointed a relative as guardian.  However, this guardianship was vacated in 2006.  (No basis given in opinion.)  Thereafter the minor lived in several foster homes.  In February 2007, a psychological evaluation stated that minor had limited cognitive abilities and had significant difficulties with emotional and social functioning.  Around this time he was also found guilty of aggravated battery.  Minor was placed in a therapeutic group home in Kankaee.  In July 2010 (minor now 17 years old) he was moved to a group home in Lisle.  Three months later he was placed in a TLP in Wheaton. 

            In February, 2012, soon before minor’s 19^th birthday, the GAL filed a motion to extend wardship and guardianship.  At the hearing the TLP supervisor recommended extending wardship.  The supervisor testified theat minor was attending classes at the College of DuPage, though not consistently, and looking for a job.  The circuit court granted the GAL’s motion to extend guardianship for 6 months, noting that the minor needed services to help him gain independence. 

            At the August 2012 permanency hearing the minor’s case manager testified that the minor had violated the TLP’s rules, lost his job, used drugs, and violated probation.  Moreover, he owed school loans and a collection agency was pursuing payment on his Sprint phone bill.  The case manager testified that the minor had not made progress, however he could not live independently without aid from DCFS and ChildServ and would benefit from additional services.  The circuit court ordered the case to be closed because the minor did not seem to care to engage in services.  However, the court stayed the matter for 45 days to determine if the minor’s behavior would change.  The court’s order stated that the minor was unable to live independently and was not cooperating with services.  The court checked the box on the order form that good cause was shown to support extension of wardship which was in the best interest of the minor and the public.

            During the September 2012 status hearing the case manager testified that the minor was in desperate need of the following services:  education, vocational training, life skills, therapy and substance abuse treatments.  The minor’s engagement in services were non-existent.  The circuit court closed the case because there was “very little legal basis” to keep the case open.  The court wrote on the order form that it was in the minor’s best interest to close the case. 

            The appellate court first noted the circuit court’s failure to follow the provisions of the Juvenile Court Act, 705 ILCS 405/2-2-31(1) & (2) which requires a court to make written factual findings in support of closing a case.  The appellate court also noted that the provisions of the Act state that a case cannot be closed based on the failure of the minor to engage in services. 

In this case, the appellate court found that the circuit court erred when failing to make any written factual findings regarding the health and safety of the minor and the public.  Moreover, the minor had testified that he wanted the case to remain open.  The manifest weight of the evidence did not support the court’s ruling.  The minor needed employment, drug abuse treatment, and had unresolved delinquency matters.  There was no evidence that the minor could live independently at that time.  The circuit court failed to consider the minor’s need for services to be made available to him.  The minor’s lack of cooperation and engagement in services was not a basis for termination of guardianship.  The circuit court’s order was reversed and remanded.