80 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2026 35 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Edward T.green2 sentences2008“Generally, an appeal of findings made in a temporary custody hearing is moot where there is a subsequent adjudication of wardship supported by adequate evidence.” In re Edward T, 343 Ill. 2008"Generally, an appeal of findings made in a temporary custody hearing is moot where there is a subsequent adjudication of wardship supported by adequate evidence." In re Edward T., 343 Ill.App.3d 778, 792 , 278 Ill. | 5 | 8 |
In Re ADWgreen2 sentences2022App. 3d 778, 792 (2003) (“appeal of findings made in a temporary custody hearing is moot where there is a subsequent adjudication of wardship supported by adequate evidence”); see In re A.D.W., 278 Ill. 2004App. 3d at 480 , 663 N.E.2d at 61 (an appeal of findings made in a temporary-custody hearing is moot where a subsequent adjudication of wardship is supported by adequate evidence). | 5 | 5 |
People v. Arthur H.green2 sentences2026Then, a temporary custody hearing is conducted at which the court must “determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the child is neglected, whether there is an immediate and urgent necessity to remove the child from the home and whether reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the removal of the child or that no efforts reasonably can be made to prevent or eliminate the necessity of removal.” In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d at 462 . 2025Then, a temporary custody hearing is conducted at which the court must “determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the child is neglected, whether there is an immediate and urgent necessity to remove the child from the home and whether reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the removal of the child or that no efforts reasonably can be made to prevent or eliminate the necessity of removal.” Id. | 4 | 19 |
In Re AHgreen2 sentences2014Upon the filing of a petition, the court shall conduct a temporary custody hearing to determine who will be granted temporary custody of the minor until further hearings are conducted as to whether the minor should be adjudged a ward of the court and placed in the permanent custody of someone other than the minor’s parents. 705 ILCS 405/2-10 -5- Nos. 1-13-2504 & 1-13-2507 (West 2012); In re A.H., 195 Ill. 2d 408 , 417 (2001). 2014These additional hearings consist of an “adjudicatory hearing,” a “dispositional hearing,” and a “permanency hearing.” A.H., 195 Ill. 2d at 417. ¶ 13 At the temporary custody hearing, the court must first make a threshold determination as to whether there is probable cause to believe that the minor is abused or neglected. | 4 | 9 |
In Re Lawrence M.green2 sentences2021In re Lawrence M., 172 Ill. 2d at 534-35 (finding the record was unclear in one of the consolidated cases whether drug treatment was recommended, and rejecting DCFS’s claim that the circuit court’s order was premature because, “in most cases, DCFS should have a treatment plan in development prior to the temporary custody hearing”). 17 which includes, but is not limited to, ameliorative services). 2021In re Lawrence M., 172 Ill. 2d at 534-35 (finding the record was unclear in one of the consolidated cases whether drug treatment was recommended, and rejecting DCFS’s claim that the circuit court’s order was premature because, “in most cases, DCFS should have a treatment plan in development prior to the temporary custody hearing”). - 11 - 325 Ill. | 2 | 4 |
Santosky v. Kramergreen2 sentences2024App. 3d 592, 599-600 (1996). “ ‘When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.’ ” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 359 (2004) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-54 (1982)). ¶ 41 Upon the filing of a petition by the State, the Act mandates that a temporary custody hearing take place, during which the court will decide whether there is reason to believe that the child is being neglected, whether it is necessary to remove the child from the home immediately, whether reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the r 2023“When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 359 (2004) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-54 (1982)). ¶ 42 Upon the filing of a petition by the State, the Act mandates that a temporary custody hearing take place, during which the court will decide whether there is reason to believe that the child is being neglected, whether it is necessary to remove the child from the home immediately, 10 No. 1-23-0508 whether reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the removal of the ch | 2 | 2 |
In Re DTgreen2 sentences2024App. 3d 592, 599-600 (1996). “ ‘When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.’ ” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 359 (2004) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-54 (1982)). ¶ 41 Upon the filing of a petition by the State, the Act mandates that a temporary custody hearing take place, during which the court will decide whether there is reason to believe that the child is being neglected, whether it is necessary to remove the child from the home immediately, whether reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the r 2023“When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 359 (2004) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-54 (1982)). ¶ 42 Upon the filing of a petition by the State, the Act mandates that a temporary custody hearing take place, during which the court will decide whether there is reason to believe that the child is being neglected, whether it is necessary to remove the child from the home immediately, 10 No. 1-23-0508 whether reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the removal of the ch | 2 | 2 |
People v. Melody E.green2 sentences2010See In re Marcus E., 183 Ill. 2010See In re Marcus E., 183 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
In Re SWgreen2 sentences2008See In re John Paul J., 343 Ill.App.3d 865, 874, 877-78 , 278 Ill.Dec. 904 , 799 N.E.2d 769, 776, 779 (2003) (failure to conduct a temporary custody hearing under section 2-9(3) of the Act within 48 hours did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction; failure to conduct adjudicatory hearing within 90 days under section 2-14 forfeited when petitioner failed to file motion to dismiss petition for adjudication); In re S.W., 342 Ill.App.3d 445 , 452, 276 Ill.Dec. 787 , 794 N.E.2d 1037,1042-43 (2003) (petitioner waived the time requirements of section 2-14 by failing to file motion to dismiss in 2008See In re John Paul J., 343 Ill.App.3d 865, 874, 877-78 , 278 Ill.Dec. 904 , 799 N.E.2d 769, 776, 779 (2003) (failure to conduct a temporary custody hearing under section 2-9(3) of the Act within 48 hours did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction; failure to conduct adjudicatory hearing within 90 days under section 2-14 forfeited when petitioner failed to file motion to dismiss petition for adjudication); In re S.W., 342 Ill.App.3d 445 , 452, 276 Ill.Dec. 787 , 794 N.E.2d 1037,1042-43 (2003) (petitioner waived the time requirements of section 2-14 by failing to file motion to dismiss in | 2 | 2 |
In Re John Paul J.green2 sentences2008See In re John Paul J., 343 Ill.App.3d 865, 874, 877-78 , 278 Ill.Dec. 904 , 799 N.E.2d 769, 776, 779 (2003) (failure to conduct a temporary custody hearing under section 2-9(3) of the Act within 48 hours did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction; failure to conduct adjudicatory hearing within 90 days under section 2-14 forfeited when petitioner failed to file motion to dismiss petition for adjudication); In re S.W., 342 Ill.App.3d 445 , 452, 276 Ill.Dec. 787 , 794 N.E.2d 1037,1042-43 (2003) (petitioner waived the time requirements of section 2-14 by failing to file motion to dismiss in 2008See In re John Paul J., 343 Ill.App.3d 865, 874, 877-78 , 278 Ill.Dec. 904 , 799 N.E.2d 769, 776, 779 (2003) (failure to conduct a temporary custody hearing under section 2-9(3) of the Act within 48 hours did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction; failure to conduct adjudicatory hearing within 90 days under section 2-14 forfeited when petitioner failed to file motion to dismiss petition for adjudication); In re S.W., 342 Ill.App.3d 445 , 452, 276 Ill.Dec. 787 , 794 N.E.2d 1037,1042-43 (2003) (petitioner waived the time requirements of section 2-14 by failing to file motion to dismiss in | 2 | 2 |
People v. Clayborngreen2 sentences2003App. 3d 1047, 1051 , 414 N.E.2d 157 (1980) (holding that the trial court’s failure to conduct a temporary custody hearing within the time frame mandated by a predecessor version of section 2 — 9 of the Act did not deprive the court of personal jurisdiction over the minor). 2003App. 3d 1047, 1051 , 414 N.E.2d 157 (1980) (holding that the trial court's failure to conduct a temporary custody hearing within the time frame mandated by a predecessor version of section 2-9 of the Act did not deprive the court of personal jurisdiction over the minor). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Austin D.green2 sentences2010In re Austin D., 358 Ill.App.3d 794, 801 , 294 Ill.Dec. 881 , 831 N.E.2d 1206 (2005), citing In re L.M., 189 Ill.App.3d 392, 395 , 136 Ill.Dec. 795 , 545 N.E.2d 319 (1989) (referring to the temporary custody hearing as a "probable cause hearing"). 2010In re Austin D., 358 Ill.App.3d 794, 801 , 294 Ill.Dec. 881 , 831 N.E.2d 1206 (2005), citing In re L.M., 189 Ill.App.3d 392, 395 , 136 Ill.Dec. 795 , 545 N.E.2d 319 (1989) (referring to the temporary custody hearing as a "probable cause hearing"). | 1 | 2 |
In Re RMgreen2 sentences2000FOOTNOTES 1: Under section 2-9 of the Juvenile Court Act, where a minor is taken into temporary protective custody, he must be brought before a judicial officer within 48 hours for a temporary custody hearing (unless he is released before that deadline). 705 ILCS 405/2-9(1) (West 1999). 2: We are aware that the court in In re R.M. , 288 Ill. 2000We are aware that the court in In re R.M., 288 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Poulos v. Lanegreen2 sentences2000Poulos , 276 Ill. 2000Poulos, 276 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Dorothy H.green1 sentence2026However, the Mother’s challenge to the court’s disposition order in this case does not involve any of those situations and thus, we reject her argument. ¶ 47 More to the point, this court has addressed this issue at the disposition stage and stated that “issues regarding whether a minor should be adjudged a ward of the court are not related to issues regarding reasonable efforts on the part of DCFS toward reunification.” In re William H., 407 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| In Re EBgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Austin D.green | 1 | 1 |
| Petalino v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Christy F.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re JTgreen | 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 NB
green
2 sentences2026Id. § 2-21; In re N.B., 191 Ill. 2d 338 , 343 (2000). 2026Id. § 2-21; In re N.B., 191 Ill. 2d 338 , 343 (2000). | 5 | 2004–2026 |
People v. Jaqueline M.
green
2 sentences2021Id. at 1100-02 . ¶ 32 In contrast, here, there was sufficient evidence presented at the temporary custody hearing to establish probable cause. 2010The appellate court rejected the State's argument that the sufficiency of the evidence at the temporary custody hearing was moot because there was no relief available to the mother regarding the temporary custody hearing. 382 Ill.App.3d at 1100 , 321 Ill.Dec. 882 , 890 N.E.2d 604 . | 3 | 2010–2021 |
In re N.G.
green
2 sentences2019A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent N.G.’s best interests, and a temporary custody hearing was held the same day (see id. § 2-10). 2018On December 19, 2011, while Floyd F. was incarcerated in the Department of Corrections and N.G. was living with her mother, DCFS petitioned the circuit court of Will County to adjudicate N.G. a ward of the court on the grounds that she was neglected within the meaning of section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 ( 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2010) ) because her environment was injurious to her welfare. *556 *111 A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent N.G.'s best interests, and a temporary custody hearing was held the same day (see id. § 2-10). | 3 | 2018–2019 |
In Re LM
green
2 sentences2024The photos of D.F.’s injuries are, as the trial court noted, “disturbing.” And D.F. was not “happy and unaffected” by the discipline, but rather told Ms. Morris—according to her testimony at the temporary custody hearing—that he did not feel safe at home. ¶ 69 We agree with the State that this case is more similar to In re L.M., 189 Ill. 2010In re Austin D., 358 Ill.App.3d 794, 801 , 294 Ill.Dec. 881 , 831 N.E.2d 1206 (2005), citing In re L.M., 189 Ill.App.3d 392, 395 , 136 Ill.Dec. 795 , 545 N.E.2d 319 (1989) (referring to the temporary custody hearing as a "probable cause hearing"). | 2 | 2010–2024 |
In Re IH
green
2 sentences2010Indeed, adopting a custom and practice similar to that of the Supreme Court would fit well with this court's encouragement of pro bono service (see 210 Ill.2d R. 756(f)). [4] In fact, nowhere in the majority opinion is it acknowledged that this case is being decided upon a one-sided argument. [5] As a further example of the conundrum in which the majority finds itself, the "Conclusion" section of its opinion states that the majority "affirms" the judgment of the appellate court, but that "[t]o the extent the appellate court applied section 2-18(4)(c)'s evidentiary limitation to a temporary cus 2010Indeed, adopting a custom and practice similar to that of the Supreme Court would fit well with this court's encouragement of pro bono service (see 210 Ill.2d R. 756(f)). [4] In fact, nowhere in the majority opinion is it acknowledged that this case is being decided upon a one-sided argument. [5] As a further example of the conundrum in which the majority finds itself, the "Conclusion" section of its opinion states that the majority "affirms" the judgment of the appellate court, but that "[t]o the extent the appellate court applied section 2-18(4)(c)'s evidentiary limitation to a temporary cus | 2 | 2010–2023 |
People v. Ebony F. (In Re Zariyah A.)
green
2 sentences2021“After a temporary custody hearing, an adjudicatory hearing is held to determine whether a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent.” Zariyah A., 2017 IL App (1st) 170971 , ¶ 71 (citing 705 ILCS 405/1- 3(1), 2-21(1) (West 2016)). ¶ 92 At the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court only considers the question of whether the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent. 2020In re Zariyah A., 2017 IL App (1st) 170971 , ¶ 71 (citing 705 ILCS 405/1-3(1), 2-21(1) (West 2016)). | 2 | 2020–2021 |
In Re JJ
green
2 sentences2020Subsequently, the State moved to dismiss the adjudication petition, contending that there was newly discovered evidence that D.B. suffered a medical condition as opposed to child abuse, and the State’s motion was granted after an evidentiary hearing over the public guardian’s objection. ¶ 43 In In re J.J., 142 Ill. 2d 1 , our supreme court held that “when the State moves to dismiss a petition alleging abuse of a minor, the circuit court shall consider the merits of the motion and determine, on the record, whether dismissal is in the best interests of the minor, the minor’s family and the commu 2020Subsequently, the State moved to dismiss the adjudication petition, contending that there was newly discovered evidence that D.B. suffered a medical condition as opposed to child abuse, and the State’s motion was granted after an evidentiary hearing over the public guardian’s objection. - 14 - No. 1-20-0356 ¶ 43 In In re J.J., 142 Ill. 2d 1 (1991), our supreme court held that “when the State moves to dismiss a petition alleging abuse of a minor, the circuit court shall consider the merits of the motion and determine, on the record, whether dismissal is in the best interests of the minor, the m | 2 | 2020–2020 |
In re Ashli T.
neutral
2 sentences2020When a petition is filed, the court shall order a temporary custody hearing to determine who will be granted temporary custody of the minor until a determination can be made as to whether the minor should be adjudged a ward of the court and placed in the custody of someone other than the minor’s parents. 705 ILCS 405/2-10 (West 2018); Ashli T., 2014 IL App (1st) 132504, ¶ 12 . 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 GFH
green
2 sentences2018Following a finding of abuse, neglect, or dependency, the trial court must then conduct a dispositional hearing (In re G.F.H., 315 Ill. 2017Following a finding of abuse, neglect, or dependency, the trial court must then conduct a dispositional hearing ( In re G.F.H. , 315 Ill. | 2 | 2017–2018 |
In Re MB
green
2 sentences2010The court noted that the court in In re M.B., 241 Ill.App.3d 697, 706 , 182 Ill.Dec. 197 , 609 N.E.2d 731 (1992), applied section 2-18(4)(c)'s evidentiary requirement to a temporary custody hearing. 382 Ill.App.3d at 1099 , 321 Ill.Dec. 882 , 890 N.E.2d 604 . 2010The court noted that the court in In re M.B., 241 Ill.App.3d 697, 706 , 182 Ill.Dec. 197 , 609 N.E.2d 731 (1992), applied section 2-18(4)(c)'s evidentiary requirement to a temporary custody hearing. 382 Ill.App.3d at 1099 , 321 Ill.Dec. 882 , 890 N.E.2d 604 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Diana F.
green
2 sentences2005Section 2-10(2) of the Act provides that at a temporary custody hearing, a trial court first decides whether there is probable cause to believe that the minor is abused, neglected or dependent. 705 ILCS 405/2-10(2) (West 2004); In re Ashley F., 265 Ill.App.3d at 424 , 202 Ill.Dec. 722 , 638 N.E.2d 368 . 2005Section 2-10(2) of the Act provides that at a temporary custody hearing, a trial court first decides whether there is probable cause to believe that the minor is abused, neglected or dependent. 705 ILCS 405/2-10(2) (West 2004); In re Ashley F., 265 Ill.App.3d at 424 , 202 Ill.Dec. 722 , 638 N.E.2d 368 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
In Re Patricia S.
green
2 sentences2003Initially, we address respondent’s argument that the trial court failed to conduct a proper temporary custody hearing and that, pursuant to In re Patricia S., 222 Ill. 2003Initially, we address respondent's argument that the trial court failed to conduct a proper temporary custody hearing and that, pursuant to In re Patricia S. , 222 Ill. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
In Re CRH
green
2 sentences2000While our decision has already been determined on the grounds set forth above, we will briefly comment as to each of these contentions. “[D]ue process of law requires that notice in juvenile proceedings be equivalent to that constitutionally required in criminal or civil cases.” In re C.R.H., 163 Ill. 2d 263 , 269, 644 N.E.2d 1153 , 1156 (1994); 705 ILCS 405/2 — 10(3) (West Supp. 1997). 2000While our decision has already been determined on the grounds set forth above, we will briefly comment as to each of these contentions. “[D]ue process of law requires that notice in juvenile proceedings be equivalent to that constitutionally required in criminal or civil cases.” In re C.R.H., 163 Ill. 2d 263 , 269, 644 N.E.2d 1153 , 1156 (1994); 705 ILCS 405/2 — 10(3) (West Supp. 1997). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
In Re Estate of Brooks
green
2 sentences1987Our supreme court, in In re Estate of Brooks (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 361 , 205 N.E.2d 435 , addressed the question of whether such treatment could be forced upon an adult Jehovah’s Witness in spite of her religious convictions: “It seems to be clearly established that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as extended to the individual States by the Fourteenth Amendment to that constitution, protects the absolute right of every individual to freedom in his religious belief and the exercise thereof, subject only to the qualification that the exercise thereof may properly be limited by 1987Our supreme court, in In re Estate of Brooks (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 361 , 205 N.E.2d 435 , addressed the question of whether such treatment could be forced upon an adult Jehovah’s Witness in spite of her religious convictions: “It seems to be clearly established that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as extended to the individual States by the Fourteenth Amendment to that constitution, protects the absolute right of every individual to freedom in his religious belief and the exercise thereof, subject only to the qualification that the exercise thereof may properly be limited by | 2 | 1987–1987 |
In re M.I.
green
1 sentence2026F.H. also contends that the circuit court’s unfitness findings and best interest determination were against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶ 53 “ ‘In Illinois, the authority to involuntarily terminate parental rights is purely statutory and the scope of the court’s authority is defined by the Juvenile Court Act and the Adoption Act.’ ” In re M.I., 2016 IL 120232 , ¶ 19 (quoting In re E.B., 231 Ill. 2d 459, 463 (2008)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| In re A.W.-B neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| In re E.C.-F. neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Mayfield green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In Re SG green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In re Matter of Chance H. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In Re KC green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In re J.S. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In Re JW green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Weaver green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re Ivan H. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. English M. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| In Re SD green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| In Re Marriage of Felson green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Stilley green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Fontenot neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Baker green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| In Re JKF green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.