The Illinois Supreme Court has recently issued two opinions significant to attorneys practicing in the areas of child custody and child neglect. The decision of In Re Marriage of Bates, of October 28, 2004, addressed the Illinois child representative statute. ___ Ill. ____ , 2004 WL 2403721 (Oct. 28, 2004). The court considered the previous ruling of the Second District Appellate Court, which had reviewed the decision of the Circuit Court of DuPage County.

The Bates court found that the Illinois statute providing for the admission of a child representative's recommendation without testifying, as applied to the child's mother, deprived the mother of procedural due process. However, the court found this deprivation to be harmless. The Bates court further found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing expert testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome; in failing to conduct an in camera interview with the child about an allegation of the child that her father had struck her; and in allowing the child's representative to call a deputy as a witness.

The decision of In Re Arthur H., issued the same day, reviewed the Second District's holding. The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court of Winnebago County had erred in declaring seven-year-old Arthur, Jr. a ward of the state because of its finding that his mother had neglected him. ____ Ill. ____, 2004 WL 2403684 (Oct. 28, 2004). The boy's father was represented by Rockford attorney Michael Raridon, a previous contributing author of this newsletter. The father is currently in a Wisconsin prison on a drug offense and is scheduled for release in 2006. The boy had lived most often with his father in Milwaukee.

The court reasoned that the trial court was required to determine whether the child is neglected, and not whether the parents are neglectful. The court found that the evidence did not support a finding that the boy was exposed to a probable and substantial risk of suffering harm based on the mother's neglect of the boy's siblings. The court found that the State had failed to prove that Arthur Jr. had been neglected, noting that "the natural ties between parents and their children may not be severed on the basis of mere speculation."