In re T.P.

Opinion

NO. 4-07-0945 Filed 3/28/08

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

In re: T.P., Q.P., and A.P., Minors, ) Appeal from THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Circuit Court of Petitioner-Appellee, ) Champaign County v. ) No. 06JA43 DANNELLE PASLEY, ) Respondent-Appellant. ) Honorable ) John R. Kennedy, ) Judge Presiding. _________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the opinion of the court:

In December 2007, the trial court found respondent

mother, Dannelle Pasley, to be an unfit parent and ruled it was

in the best interest of T.P., A.P., and Q.P. to terminate

Dannelle

trial court failed to consult with the minors regarding the

permanency goals set for the minors as required by section 2-

28(2) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-

28(2) (West 2006)). We affirm.

On July 13, 2006, the State filed a three-count

supplemental petition for wardship alleging T.P. (born May 12,

2004), A.P. (born April 14, 2005), and Q.P. (born May 4, 2006)

were neglected minors because (1) Dannelle abandoned them without

a proper plan of care; (2) their environment was injurious to

their welfare when they resided with Dannelle and Michael Pasley

because their environment exposed them to substance abuse; and (3) their environment was injurious to their welfare when they

resided with Dannelle and/or Michael Pasley because their

environment exposed them to substance abuse. That same day, the

trial court found the minors to be neglected due to all three

grounds alleged. On August 9, 2006, the minors were made wards

of the court and placed in the custody and guardianship of the

Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.

On June 1, 2007, the State sought to terminate parental

rights as to all three minors. The petition alleged Dannelle was

unfit because (1) she failed to make reasonable efforts to

correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the

minors from her; (2) she failed to make reasonable progress

toward the return of the minors within the initial nine-month

period following the adjudication of neglect; and (3) she failed

to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or

responsibility as the welfare of the minors.

On August 23, 2007, the trial court found Dannelle

unfit on all three grounds alleged in the petition to terminate

parental rights. On December 11, 2007, Dannelle

rights were terminated. Following the termination of Dannelle

parental rights, the trial court changed the permanency goal for

the minors to adoption. This appeal followed. (The father

parental rights were also terminated, but he is not a party to

this appeal.)

- 2 - On appeal, Dannelle contends the trial court erred when

it changed the permanency goal of the minors to adoption without

first consulting with the minor children as required by section

2-28(2) of the Act.

Section 2-28(2) covers court review of custody or

guardianship placements of minors subject to the Act. At such

permanency hearings, the trial court determines the future status

of the minors. The Act provides, in pertinent part:

"The court shall set a permanency goal

that is in the best interest of the child.

In determining that goal, the court shall

consult with the minor in an age-appropriate

manner regarding the proposed permanency or

transition plan for the minor." Pub. Act 95-

10, §10 (eff. June 30, 2007) (2007 Ill.

Legis. Serv. 70, 81 (West)), amending 705

ILCS 405/2-28(2) (West 2006).

The requirement a trial court consult with a minor regarding a

change in permanency status was added by amendment effective June

30, 2007.

The trial court in this case did not consult with the

minor children prior to changing their permanency goal to

adoption.

While section 2-28(2) requires consultation with the

- 3 - minors involved before changing their permanency status, this

consultation is to be conducted in "an age-appropriate manner."

In this case, at the time of best-interest hearing at which the

trial court set a permanency goal of adoption for the children,

following termination of Dannelle

1/2 years old, A.P. was 2 1/2 years old, and Q.P. was 1 1/2 years

old. We are unaware of any age-appropriate consultation the

trial court could have undertaken with minor children of such

tender age. The failure to consult with the minors prior to

changing their permanency status was not a violation of section

2-28(2) in this case.

It could also be argued Dannelle had no standing to

assert the violation of this statute as her parental rights had

already been terminated when the trial court made the change in

permanency status without consulting the minors. We need not

determine her exact interest in this case as we find no violation

of the statute in question.

For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's

orders finding Dannelle to be an unfit parent and terminating her

parental rights.

Affirmed.

APPLETON, P.J., and MYERSCOUGH, J., concur.

- 4 -