107 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 69 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 DTgreen2 sentences2026Even at the best-interest hearing, respondent’s counsel focused on respondent’s interests and not the children’s, stating he had been prevented from seeing his children due to the no-contact order in his criminal case despite being presumed innocent, and his decision to not “avail himself of services [was] because of his adherence to the advice of counsel.” However, the focus of the best-interest hearing is on the needs and interests of the children. “[T]he parent’s - 12 - interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship must yield to the child’s interest in a stable, loving home life.” D 2026However, at the best-interest hearing, “the parent’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship must yield to the child’s interest in a stable, loving home life.” D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 364 . | 19 | 39 |
Santosky v. Kramergreen2 sentences2025In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347 , 363 (2004) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760-61 (1982)). 19 ¶ 63 At the best-interest hearing, the State must establish proof that termination of a parent’s rights is in the child’s best interest by a preponderance of the evidence. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2022); In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 366. 2025In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347 , 363 (2004) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760-61 (1982)). ¶ 117 At the best-interest hearing, the State must establish proof that termination of a parent’s rights is in the child’s best interest by a preponderance of the evidence. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2022); In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 366. | 4 | 4 |
In Re CWgreen2 sentences2026In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198, 210 (2002). ¶ 54 To reverse a trial court’s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness, a reviewing court must determine that the trial court’s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 2025In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198, 210 (2002). | 3 | 3 |
In re Nevaeh R.green2 sentences2025See In re Nevaeh R., 2017 IL App (2d) 170229 , ¶ 20 - 10 - 2025 IL App (2d) 250001-U (“The court need find a parent unfit under only one of the grounds” in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act to proceed to a best-interest hearing). ¶ 42 Relevant here are sections 1(D)(b) (failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the child’s welfare), 1(D)(m)(i) (failure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child during any nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect or abuse), and 1(D)(m)(ii) (failur 2025See In re Nevaeh R., 2017 IL App (2d) 170229, ¶ 20 (“The court need find a parent unfit under only one of the grounds” in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act to proceed to a best-interest hearing). ¶ 43 If the court finds the parent unfit, the court moves to the best-interest stage of the proceeding. | 2 | 3 |
In Re DMgreen2 sentences2026In re D.M., 336 Ill. 2020App. 3d 766, 772 , 784 N.E.2d 304, 309 (2002) (noting a trial court’s focus at a best-interest hearing is on “the child’s welfare and whether termination would improve the child’s future financial, social[,] and emotional atmosphere”). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Chehaibergreen2 sentences2023In re Parentage of K.E.B., 2014 IL App (2d) 131332, ¶ 33 ; see In re Marriage of Chehaiber, 394 Ill. 2023In re K.E.B., 2014 IL App (2d) 131332, ¶ 33 ; see also In re Marriage of Chehaiber, 394 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
In Re SMgreen2 sentences2017See In re S.M., 314 Ill. 2017See In re S.M., 314 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
| In Re BBgreen | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hostettergreen2 sentences2009Nonetheless, respondents urge this court to consider their claim under the plain-error doctrine because the best-interest hearing was fundamentally unfair in that the court took judicial notice of a "substantial quantum of incompetent evidence." "This court may review an error under the plain-error doctrine if (1) the evidence is closely balanced or (2) the error is `so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.'" People v. Hostetter, 384 Ill.App.3d 700, 707 , 323 Ill.Dec. 299 2009Nonetheless, respondents urge this court to consider their claim under the plain-error doctrine because the best-interest hearing was fundamentally unfair in that the court took judicial notice of a “substantial quantum of incompetent evidence.” “This court may review an error under the plain-error doctrine if (1) the evidence is closely balanced or (2) the error is ‘so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.’ ” People v. Hostetter, 384 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hallgreen2 sentences2009Nonetheless, respondents urge this court to consider their claim under the plain-error doctrine because the best-interest hearing was fundamentally unfair in that the court took judicial notice of a "substantial quantum of incompetent evidence." "This court may review an error under the plain-error doctrine if (1) the evidence is closely balanced or (2) the error is `so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.'" People v. Hostetter, 384 Ill.App.3d 700, 707 , 323 Ill.Dec. 299 2009Nonetheless, respondents urge this court to consider their claim under the plain-error doctrine because the best-interest hearing was fundamentally unfair in that the court took judicial notice of a "substantial quantum of incompetent evidence." "This court may review an error under the plain-error doctrine if (1) the evidence is closely balanced or (2) the error is `so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.'" People v. Hostetter, 384 Ill.App.3d 700, 707 , 323 Ill.Dec. 299 | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Betty M.green | 2 | 2 |
| In Re Austin W.green | 2 | 2 |
In re B.B. and A.T.green2 sentences2021In other words, we should deem the finding to be against the manifest weight of the evidence if the finding is “unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.” Id. ¶ 86 Was the circuit court’s best-interest finding as to K.H. a reasonable, nonarbitrary, evidence- based application of the best-interest factors in section 1-3(4.05) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2018))? 2020In other words, we should deem the finding to be against the manifest weight of the evidence if the finding is “unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.” Id. ¶ 86 Was the circuit court’s best-interest finding as to K.H. a reasonable, nonarbitrary, evidence-based application of the best-interest factors in section 1-3(4.05) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2018))? | 1 | 3 |
In Re JPgreen2 sentences2026J.P., 316 Ill. 2025In re J.P., 316 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Adeline E.green2 sentences2024Accordingly, at a best-interest hearing, “the parent’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship must yield to the child’s interest in a stable, loving home life.” Id. ¶ 79 The determination of whether termination of parental rights serves a minor’s best interest relies on the consideration of several factors, including: “(1) the child’s physical safety and welfare; (2) the development of the child’s identity; (3) the child’s familial, cultural[,] and religious background and ties; (4) the child’s sense of attachments, including love, security, familiarity, continuity of affection, 2024Accordingly, at a best-interest hearing, “the parent’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship must yield to the child’s interest in a stable, loving home life.” Id. ¶ 56 The determination of whether termination of parental rights serves a minor’s best interest relies on the consideration of several factors, including: “(1) the child’s physical safety and welfare; (2) the development of the child’s identity; (3) the child’s familial, cultural[,] and religious background and ties; (4) the child’s sense of attachments, including love, security, familiarity, continuity of affection, | 1 | 2 |
In Re MHgreen2 sentences2011M.H., 196 Ill.2d at 360 , 256 Ill.Dec. 297 , 751 N.E.2d at 1138 . 2011M.H., 196 Ill.2d at 360 , 256 Ill.Dec. 297 , 751 N.E.2d at 1138 . | 1 | 2 |
In Re SBgreen2 sentences2009S.B., 305 Ill. 2009S.B., 305 Ill.App.3d at 815-16, 239 Ill.Dec. 219 , 713 N.E.2d at 751-52. | 1 | 2 |
| In Re Marriage of Spomergreen | 1 | 2 |
| In Re JBgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re CNgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Knolls Condominium Ass'n v. Harmsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re OSgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Estate of McDonaldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re JLgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Webster v. Hartmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re DLgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hilliergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. P.A.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re YAgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Jaron Z.
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 261-62 . ¶ 82 The focus of the best-interest hearing is determining the best interest of the child, not the parent. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2014). 2020Id. at 261-62 . - 18 - ¶ 70 The focus of the best-interest hearing is to determine the best interest of the child, not the parent. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2016). | 7 | 2019–2020 |
In re J.B.
green
2 sentences2026“A best-interest determination is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the facts clearly demonstrate that the trial court should have reached the opposite result.” Id. ¶ 27 At the best-interest hearing, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest. 2026“A best-interest determination is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the facts clearly demonstrate that the trial court should have reached the opposite result.” Id. ¶ 20 At the best-interest hearing, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest. | 5 | 2025–2026 |
In re Marriage of Adams
green
2 sentences2025Accordingly, in the present case, the trial court had no authority to modify the parties’ allocation of parenting time absent a finding that there had been a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of its original order. ¶ 30 Additionally, section 610.5(e) of the Act provides: “(e) The court may modify a parenting plan or allocation judgment without a showing of changed circumstances if (i) the modification is in the child’s best interests; and (ii) any of the following are proven as to the modification: (1) the modification reflects the actual arrangement under which the child has 2024Id. § 602.7(b); In re Marriage of Adams, 2017 IL App (3d) 170472 , ¶ 20. ¶ 39 The trial court’s decision regarding whether to modify the allocation of parental decision- making authority and parenting time is subject to a manifest weight of the evidence standard of review. | 4 | 2022–2025 |
In re Tajannah O.
green
2 sentences2023“The court’s best[-]interest determination [need not] contain an explicit reference to each of these factors, and a reviewing court need not rely on any basis used by the trial court below in affirming its decision.” In re Tajannah O., 2014 IL App (1st) 133119, ¶ 19 . ¶ 39 At a best-interest hearing, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the minor. 2022“The court’s best interest determination need not contain an explicit reference to each of these factors, and a reviewing court need not rely on any basis used by the trial court below in affirming its decision.” In re Tajannah O., 2014 IL App (1st) 133119, ¶ 19 . -7- ¶ 28 At a best-interest hearing, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights in in the best interest of the minor. | 4 | 2022–2023 |
In Re Tashika F.
green
2 sentences2009Respondent’s last contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying her attorney’s motion to continue the best-interest hearing due to her absence, to reopen evidence, and to admit evidence of her medical record to explain her absence from the best-interest hearing. “[A] party has no absolute right to a continuance.” Tashika F., 333 Ill. 2009Respondent's last contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying her attorney's motion to continue the best-interest hearing due to her absence, to reopen evidence, and to admit evidence of her medical record to explain her absence from the best-interest hearing. "[A] party has no absolute right to a continuance." Tashika F., 333 Ill.App.3d at 169 , 266 Ill.Dec. 742 , 775 N.E.2d at 307 . | 4 | 2009–2021 |
In re Keyon R.
green
2 sentences2025The court carefully reviewed the best-interest factors vis-à-vis the evidence and concluded, “[W]eighing the statutory factors, there’s very few that weigh against termination, and the vast majority weigh in favor of terminating the biological parents’ rights.” We cannot say “the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent” from the record, nor can we find the court’s decision to be “unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence.” Keyon R., 2017 IL App (2d) 160657, ¶ 16 . ¶ 60 III. 2019In re Keyon R. , 2017 IL App (2d) 160657 , ¶ 16, 411 Ill.Dec. 532 , 73 N.E.3d 616 . ¶ 26 Section 2-21(5) of the Act permits a trial court to combine these separate hearings and terminate parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing when the original or amended petition contains a request to terminate parental rights and appoint a legal guardian with *745 *451 the power to consent to adoption. 4 705 ILCS 405/2-21(5) (West 2016). | 3 | 2019–2025 |
People v. Debra J.
green
2 sentences2024Id. ¶ 41 In this case, the record shows the minor, who was 10 years old at the time of the best-interest hearing, had been in his foster placement for almost half of his life. 2023Id. - 11 - ¶ 47 In this case, the evidence presented at the best-interest hearing supports the trial court’s finding that it was in the minor’s best interest to terminate respondent’s parental rights. | 3 | 2020–2024 |
People v. Hodges
green
2 sentences2025Id. at 1070 . 2025Id. at 1069-70 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
In re Estate of McDonald
green
2 sentences2024In support of this contention, she invokes this court’s statement in McDonald that nothing in the language of section 11a-17(a-10) of the Probate Act expressly declares that a marriage entered into by a ward is void in the absence of a best-interest hearing (In re Estate of McDonald, 2021 IL App (2d) 191113, ¶ 103 ) and noting that the dissenting justices in McDonald reached the same conclusion (In re Estate of McDonald, 2022 IL 126956, ¶¶ 108-112 (Theis, J., concurring in part - 26 - 2024 IL App (2d) 230195 and dissenting in part, joined by Overstreet and Carter, JJ.)). 2021Although not directly cited in the trial court’s ruling, this was apparently a reference to section 11a-17(a-10) of the Probate Act (755 ILCS 5/11a-17(a- 10) (West 2016)), which states in pertinent part as follows: “Upon petition by the guardian of the ward’s person or estate, the court may authorize and direct a guardian of the ward’s person or estate to consent, on behalf of the ward, to the ward’s marriage pursuant to Part II of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage - 43 - 2021 IL App (2d) 191113 Act if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the marriage is in the | 2 | 2021–2024 |
In re C.P.
green
2 sentences2023C.P., 2019 IL App (4th) 190420, ¶ 69 . 2020At the best-interest hearing, “the parent’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship must yield to the child’s interest in a stable, loving home life.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. | 2 | 2020–2023 |
In re Marriage of Virgin
green
2 sentences2023Id. § 602.7(b); In re Marriage of Adams, 2017 IL App (3d) 170472, ¶ 20 . ¶ 35 To determine the children’s best interests for the modification of the allocation of parental decision-making authority, the trial court must consider all relevant best-interest factors, including: (1) the children’s wishes; (2) the children’s adjustment to home, school, and community; (3) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; (4) the parents’ ability to cooperate to make decisions; (5) the level of each parent’s participation in past significant decision-making about the children; (6) any prior 2022Id. § 602.7(b); In re Marriage of Adams, 2017 IL App (3d) 170472, ¶ 20 . ¶ 47 To determine the children’s best interests for the modification of the allocation of parental decision-making authority, the trial court must consider all relevant best-interest factors, including: (1) the children’s wishes; (2) the children’s adjustment to home, school, and community; (3) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; (4) the parents’ ability to cooperate to make decisions; (5) the level of each parent’s participation in past significant decision-making about the children; (6) any prior | 2 | 2022–2023 |
In re Parentage of K.E.B.
green
2 sentences2023In re Parentage of K.E.B., 2014 IL App (2d) 131332, ¶ 33 ; see In re Marriage of Chehaiber, 394 Ill. 2023In re K.E.B., 2014 IL App (2d) 131332, ¶ 33 ; see also In re Marriage of Chehaiber, 394 Ill. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Pape v. Byrd
green
2 sentences2021We read nothing in the language of section 11a-17(a-10) of the Probate Act that expressly declares that a marriage entered into by a ward is void in the absence of a best-interest hearing. ¶ 103 Indeed, this is consistent with Pape, 145 Ill. 2d 13 , in which the supreme court held that the appointment under the Probate Act of a guardian of a person is not sufficient, in and of itself, to show that the person was incompetent to consent to marriage. 2021We read nothing in the language of section 11a-17(a-10) of the Probate Act that expressly declares that a marriage entered into by a ward is void in the absence of a best-interest hearing. ¶ 103 Indeed, this is consistent with Pape, 145 Ill. 2d 13 , in which the supreme court held that the appointment under the Probate Act of a guardian of a person is not sufficient, in and of itself, to show that the person was incompetent to consent to marriage. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
In re J.H.
green
2 sentences2021The State made the same four allegations against both respondents, that is, against both fathers. ¶6 First, the State alleged that respondents had “failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minor’s welfare.” See 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2018). ¶7 Second, the State alleged that respondents had “failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the minor from the parent during any [nine-]month period following the adjudication of neglect.” See id. § 1(D)(m)(i). ¶8 Third, the State alleged that, durin 2020The State made the same four allegations against both respondents, that is, against both fathers. ¶6 First, the State alleged that respondents had “failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minor’s welfare.” See 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2018). ¶7 Second, the State alleged that respondents had “failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the minor from the parent during any [nine-]month period following the adjudication of neglect.” See id. § 1(D)(m)(i). -2- ¶8 Third, the State alleged that, d | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Karbin v. Karbin
green
2 sentences2021Shawn also maintains that such a holding ignores a recent case decided by the supreme court, Karbin v. Karbin, 2012 IL 112815 . 2021Shawn also maintains that such a holding ignores a recent case decided by the supreme court, Karbin v. Karbin, 2012 IL 112815 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Martha R.
green
2 sentences2017Deandre D., 405 Ill. 2017Deandre D., 405 Ill. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| Violetta B. v. Stanciel green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| People v. Sean C. (In Re M.C.) green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Anders v. California green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| In re S.W. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| In re Marriage of Hipes green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| In re C.D. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Thomas v. Koe green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In re Marriage of Fatkin green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In re Estate of McDonald green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In re: Marriage of Tedrick green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Burmood v. Anderson green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In re Dal D. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Floyd F. (In Re N.G.) green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In re: the Adoption of H.B. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In Re Marriage of Hefer green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In Re DR green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In re Custody of G.L. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In re L.B. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In Re RL green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re SG green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re MF green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Hawkins v. Hawkins green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Hanson v. Hanson green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| In Re Marriage of Solomon green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.