In re C.B.

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-01-0008 Rel

Case Date: 06/14/2001

June 14, 2001

NO. 4-01-0008

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

In re: C.B., a Minor,
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
                    Petitioner-Appellee,
                    v.
SHAWN BRADLEY,
                    Respondent-Appellant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appeal from
Circuit Court of
Champaign County
No. 99JA91

Honorable
Holly F. Clemons,
Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH delivered the opinion of the court:

Respondent father, Shawn Bradley, appeals from theDecember 14, 2000, permanency review order of the circuit court ofChampaign County. Respondent father challenges the permanencyreview goal as not being authorized by statute and as being againstthe manifest weight of the evidence. We dismiss the appeal forlack of jurisdiction.

In earlier appeals by respondent mother, Jessica Tallian,and respondent father, this court affirmed the adjudication ofneglect and dispositional order as to C.B. (born July 17, 1999). In re C.B., No. 4-00-0081 (June 27, 2000) (unpublished order underSupreme Court Rule 23); In re C.B., No. 4-00-0082 (June 27, 2000)(unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

The trial court conducted the adjudicatory hearing onDecember 6, 1999, conducted the dispositional hearing on January 6,2000, and entered the written dispositional order on January 11,2000. Following the June 22, 2000, permanency review hearing, allprior orders were to remain in effect. The permanency goal set forthe respondent minor was "remain home." No appeal was taken fromthat permanency review order.

The trial court conducted a second permanency reviewhearing on December 14, 2000. At that time, custody was returnedto respondent mother, guardianship continued with the IllinoisDepartment of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and thepermanency goal was again set at "remain home." In the permanencyreview order entered December 14, 2000, the trial court did notdesignate one of the preprinted permanency goals, but itinterlineated the handwritten goal of " Remain home." In thisappeal, respondent father argues that this is not a statutorilypermitted permanency goal and the trial court was without authorityto enter said order.

On March 30, 2001, a panel of the Fifth District of thiscourt determined that the provision in section 2-28(3) of theJuvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-28(3) (West 1998)), which made permanency review orders immediatelyappealable, is unconstitutional because it violates the separation-of-powers clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970,art. II,