38 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re KHgreen2 sentences2025We agree with the State. ¶ 66 Respondent cites In re K.H., 313 Ill. 2023See In re K.H., 313 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Richard W.green2 sentences2019See id. § 2-28(2)(B-1) (at the permanency review hearing, the trial court shall set one of the listed permanency goals, which includes the goal of the minor being “in short-term care with a continued goal to return home pending a status hearing”). 2019See id. § 2-28(2)(B-1) (at the permanency review hearing, the trial court shall set one of the listed permanency goals, which includes the goal of the minor being “in short-term care with a continued goal to return home pending a status hearing”). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Leola B.green2 sentences2005See In re Curtis B., 203 Ill.2d 53 , 271 Ill.Dec. 1 , 784 N.E.2d 219 (2002). 2005See In re Curtis B., 203 Ill. 2d 53 (2002). | 2 | 2 |
In Re JHgreen2 sentences2000App.3d 188 , 196-97, 237 Ill.Dec. 446 , 709 N.E.2d 701, 707 (1999)) provides in relevant part as follows: "At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the future status of the child. 2000App.3d 188 , 196-97, 237 Ill.Dec. 446 , 709 N.E.2d 701, 707 (1999)) provides in relevant part as follows: "At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the future status of the child. | 2 | 2 |
In Re DSgreen2 sentences2016The juvenile court’s decision in this case was not pursuant to section 2-28 of the Juvenile Act, which requires the juvenile court to conduct a permanency hearing within 12 months of the entry of a temporary custody order and at least every 6 months thereafter. 705 ILCS 405/2-28(2) (West 2014); In re D.S., 198 Ill. 2d 309, 326 (2001). 2007In re D.S., 198 Ill.2d 309 , 329, 261 Ill.Dec. 281 , 763 N.E.2d 251 , 262 (2001). | 1 | 2 |
In Re AHgreen1 sentence2026In re A.H., 195 Ill. 2d at 417. | 1 | 1 |
Snowstar Corp. v. A&A Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Service, Inc.green1 sentence2024Snowstar Corporation v. A&A Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Service, Inc., 2024 IL App (4th) 230757, ¶ 107 (a “party who ‘opens the door’ on a particular subject is barred from objecting to questioning based upon the same subject,” so he “cannot complain [on appeal] about a line of inquiry that he has invited”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). ¶ 37 Next, Barron-Esparza contends that Plaintiffs’ counsel improperly made “numerous pleas for an award of permanency” even though the court had disallowed a permanency claim. | 1 | 1 |
In Interest of MVgreen1 sentence2022These two sections work together to ensure that a juvenile court can review an out-of-state placement before it occurs and to ensure that the court makes a clear record of its reasons for rejecting such a placement. ¶ 27 B.V. cites In re M.V., 288 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Irizarry v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2008App. 3d 598 , 786 N.E.2d 218 (2003), the court noted that where an award of benefits, based on a finding of a causal connection between the claimant’s work accident and the claimed injuries, is not challenged as set forth in the Act, it becomes final and conclusive and cannot be challenged in a permanency hearing. 2008Irizarry, 337 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
In Re AMgreen2 sentences2004In re A.M., 324 Ill.App.3d at 144-45, 257 Ill.Dec. 814 , 754 N.E.2d 472 ("In its motion the State argues that this court lacks the jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the statutory provision purporting to make any order entered in a permanency hearing immediately appealable is unconstitutional. 2004In re A.M., 324 Ill.App.3d at 144-45, 257 Ill.Dec. 814 , 754 N.E.2d 472 ("In its motion the State argues that this court lacks the jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the statutory provision purporting to make any order entered in a permanency hearing immediately appealable is unconstitutional. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Terry S.
green
2 sentences2002In Brandon S., the Appellate Court, First District, recently held that the denial of a section 2-28(4) motion to modify custody is not appealable under Rules 301 and 303 because such a motion "jump[s] the gun on the next scheduled permanency hearing and the order resulting therefrom could be analogized to an order resulting from a permanency hearing." Brandon S., 331 Ill.App.3d at 761 , 265 Ill.Dec. 158 , 771 N.E.2d 1117 . 2002In Brandon S., the Appellate Court, First District, recently held that the denial of a section 2-28(4) motion to modify custody is not appealable under Rules 301 and 303 because such a motion "jump[s] the gun on the next scheduled permanency hearing and the order resulting therefrom could be analogized to an order resulting from a permanency hearing." Brandon S., 331 Ill.App.3d at 761 , 265 Ill.Dec. 158 , 771 N.E.2d 1117 . | 6 | 2002–2007 |
In re Ashli T.
neutral
2 sentences2020Ashli T., 2014 IL App (1st) 132504, ¶ 12 . ¶ 40 At the temporary custody hearing, the court makes a threshold determination as to whether the minor is abused or neglected. 2020Ashli T., 2014 IL App (1st) 132504, ¶ 12 . ¶ 40 At the temporary custody hearing, the court makes a threshold determination as to whether the minor is abused or neglected. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
In re AL. P
green
2 sentences2018P. , 2017 IL App (4th) 170435 , ¶ 54, 417 Ill.Dec. 349 , 87 N.E.3d 1101 . ¶ 31 The Juvenile Court Act, in pertinent part, states as follows: "At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the future status of the child. 2018P., 2017 IL App (4th) 170435, ¶ 54 , 87 N.E.3d 1101 . ¶ 31 The Juvenile Court Act, in pertinent part, states as follows: “At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the future status of the child. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Roemer
green
2 sentences2010“Subsection 2 of section 2 — 28 of the Juvenile [Court] Act describes the trial court’s role at a permanency hearing.” In re S.J., 364 Ill. 2010"Subsection 2 of section 2-28 of the Juvenile [Court] Act describes the trial court's role at a permanency hearing." In re S.J ., 364 Ill.App.3d at 442 , 301 Ill.Dec. 308 , 846 N.E.2d 633 ; 705 ILCS 405/2-28(2) (West 2008). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
In Re Curtis B.
green
2 sentences2002However, a permanency goal is not a final order because it "'does not finally determine a right or status of a party but instead looks at the anticipated future status of the child.'" (Emphasis in original) In re Curtis B. , 325 Ill. 2002However, a permanency goal is not a final order because it “ ‘does not finally determine a right or status of a party but instead looks at the anticipated future status of the child.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) In re Curtis B., 325 Ill. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services
green
1 sentence2025The parties proceeded by “argument only,” despite section 2-22(1) of the Act allowing “[a]ll evidence helpful in determining these questions [regarding the appropriate disposition], including oral and written reports, may be admitted and may be relied upon to the extent of its probative value, even though not competent for the purposes of the adjudicatory hearing.” Id. § 2-22(1). ¶ 47 III. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re M.D.
green
1 sentence2023We emphasize again they do not. ¶ 48 As we pointed out in in In re M.D., 2022 IL App (4th) 210288, ¶ 72 , 193 N.E.3d 933 , the evidentiary rules governing permanency and dispositional hearings are far less strict than those of the fitness hearing: “At a permanency hearing, ‘[a]ll evidence relevant to determining [the legal issues set forth in section 2-28(2)], including oral and written reports, may be admitted and may be relied upon to the extent of their probative value.’ [Citation.] Notably, ‘[i]f the permanency goal is return home, the court shall make - 10 - findings that identify any pro | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Violetta B. v. Stanciel
green
1 sentence2022Id. § 2-28(2).The court must hold permanency hearings at least every six months thereafter “until the court determines that the plan and goal have been achieved.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Arthur H.
green
2 sentences2022Permanency hearings are held within 12 months of temporary custody being taken and every 6 months thereafter, or more frequently, “until the court determines that the plan and goal have been achieved.” Id. ¶ 72 At a permanency hearing, “[a]ll evidence relevant to determining [the legal issues set forth in § 2-28(2)], including oral and written reports, may be admitted and may be relied upon to the extent of their probative value.” Id. 2022Permanency hearings are held within 12 months of temporary custody being taken and every 6 months thereafter, or more frequently, “until the court determines that the plan and goal have been achieved.” Id. ¶ 72 At a permanency hearing, “[a]ll evidence relevant to determining [the legal issues set forth in § 2-28(2)], including oral and written reports, may be admitted and may be relied upon to the extent of their probative value.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re SM
green
1 sentence2022In re S.M., 223 Ill. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Interest of Jg
green
1 sentence2022This principle is reflected in section 2-18(6) of the Juvenile Court Act, which specifically permits the court to take judicial notice of evidence and sworn testimony in prior juvenile proceedings involving the same minor, provided that “the taking of judicial notice would not result in admitting hearsay evidence at a hearing where it would otherwise be prohibited.” (Emphasis added.) 705 ILCS 405/2-18(6) (West 2020). ¶ 82 For example, when a court is conducting the fitness portion of a termination proceeding, the court may not take judicial notice of a report presented in a permanency hearing | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re S.K.B.
green
1 sentence2021“In child custody cases, even deeper deference is given to the trial judge than under the familiar manifest weight of the evidence standard because of the delicacy and difficulty of the cases.” Id. ¶ 55 The options and process for a permanency goal change are outlined and discussed under section 2-28 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act): 17 “At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the future status of the child. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re CA. B.
green
1 sentence2021B., 2019 IL App (1st) 181024, ¶ 41 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re BS
green
1 sentence2020Although “the current availability of an adoptive home is one [important] consideration[ ]” in the best-interest determination, this court has observed that “[i]t may be just as important to free children from continued involvement with a [parent] whose chaotic and disruptive lifestyle is a detriment to their welfare.” In re B.S., 317 Ill. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Sandra R.
green
1 sentence2020As support for this claim it cites to In re Vincente G., 408 Ill. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re Ts
neutral
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re SJ
green
2 sentences2010"Subsection 2 of section 2-28 of the Juvenile [Court] Act describes the trial court's role at a permanency hearing." In re S.J ., 364 Ill.App.3d at 442 , 301 Ill.Dec. 308 , 846 N.E.2d 633 ; 705 ILCS 405/2-28(2) (West 2008). 2010"Subsection 2 of section 2-28 of the Juvenile [Court] Act describes the trial court's role at a permanency hearing." In re S.J ., 364 Ill.App.3d at 442 , 301 Ill.Dec. 308 , 846 N.E.2d 633 ; 705 ILCS 405/2-28(2) (West 2008). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In Re Chiara C.
green
1 sentence1999While we cite In re A.L., 294 Ill.App.3d 441 , 228 Ill.Dec. 746 , 689 N.E.2d 1167 (1998), and In re Chiara C., 279 Ill.App.3d 761 , 216 Ill.Dec. 344 , 665 N.E.2d 404 (1996), for our holding that the trial court was statutorily authorized to conduct a permanency hearing, I believe another basis exists for this holding. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
In Re AL
green
2 sentences1999While we cite In re A.L., 294 Ill.App.3d 441 , 228 Ill.Dec. 746 , 689 N.E.2d 1167 (1998), and In re Chiara C., 279 Ill.App.3d 761 , 216 Ill.Dec. 344 , 665 N.E.2d 404 (1996), for our holding that the trial court was statutorily authorized to conduct a permanency hearing, I believe another basis exists for this holding. 1999While we cite In re A.L., 294 Ill.App.3d 441 , 228 Ill.Dec. 746 , 689 N.E.2d 1167 (1998), and In re Chiara C., 279 Ill.App.3d 761 , 216 Ill.Dec. 344 , 665 N.E.2d 404 (1996), for our holding that the trial court was statutorily authorized to conduct a permanency hearing, I believe another basis exists for this holding. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Chiara C. v. Department of Children & Family Services
green
2 sentences1999While we cite In re A.L., 294 Ill.App.3d 441 , 228 Ill.Dec. 746 , 689 N.E.2d 1167 (1998), and In re Chiara C., 279 Ill.App.3d 761 , 216 Ill.Dec. 344 , 665 N.E.2d 404 (1996), for our holding that the trial court was statutorily authorized to conduct a permanency hearing, I believe another basis exists for this holding. 1999While we cite In re A.L., 294 Ill.App.3d 441 , 228 Ill.Dec. 746 , 689 N.E.2d 1167 (1998), and In re Chiara C., 279 Ill.App.3d 761 , 216 Ill.Dec. 344 , 665 N.E.2d 404 (1996), for our holding that the trial court was statutorily authorized to conduct a permanency hearing, I believe another basis exists for this holding. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.