Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re D.P.
green
1 sentence2025In re D.P., 2024 IL App (1st) 231530, ¶ 33 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re P.S.
green
2 sentences2025The court must determine “whether the parent has made earnest and conscientious strides toward correcting the conditions that led to the removal of the minor from the home.” Id. ¶ 89 “Reasonable progress,” by contrast, is determined by an objective standard, which is based upon the amount of progress measured from the conditions existing at the time custody was revoked. 2025The grounds of unfitness are any one or more of the following ***: *** (m) Failure by a parent (i) to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child from the parent during any 9-month period following the adjudication of neglected or abused minor under Section 2-3 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 or dependent minor under Section 2- 4 of that Act, or (ii) to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent during any 9-month period following the adjudication of neglected or abused minor ***.” 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i), (ii) | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Austin W.
red
2 sentences2006Although dispositional orders are generally considered “final” for the purposes of appeal (see In re Austin W., 214 Ill. 2d at 43-44 ), they are subject to modification in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Act. 2006Our supreme court has clearly indicated that once a child has been adjudicated abused, neglected or dependent pursuant to section 2 — 21 of the Act, the court must determine whether it is in the best interests of the child to be made a ward of the court and the “proper disposition best serving the health, safety and interests of the minor and the public.” In re Austin W., 214 Ill. 2d at 43 ; 705 ILCS 405/2 — 22(1) (West 2004). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re Janine MA
green
1 sentence2004It is well settled that “pleading defects must be raised at trial so they may be remedied; otherwise they are forfeited.” In re Janine M.A., 342 Ill. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In Re DF
green
1 sentence2003Specifically, the court pointed out that the statute expressly provides that the nine-month period begins after the “ ‘adjudication of neglected or abused minor under Section 2 — 3 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 or dependent minor under Section 2 — 4 of that Act.’ ” D.F., 332 Ill. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.