705 ILCS 405/2-22
Dispositional hearing; evidence; continuance
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(705 ILCS 405/2-22)
(from Ch. 37, par. 802-22) Sec. 2-22. Dispositional hearing; evidence; continuance. (1) At the dispositional hearing, the court shall determine whether it is in the best interests of the minor and the public that the minor be made a ward of the court, and, if the minor is to be made a ward of the court, the court shall determine the proper disposition best serving the health, safety and interests of the minor and the public. The court also shall consider the Department's diligent efforts in family finding and relative engagement for the minor required under Section 2-27.3 beginning July 1, 2025, the permanency goal set for the minor, the nature of the service plan for the minor and the services delivered and to be delivered under the plan. All evidence helpful in determining these questions, 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. (2) Once all parties respondent have been served in compliance with Sections 2-15 and 2-16, no further service or notice must be given to a party prior to proceeding to a dispositional hearing. Before making an order of disposition the court shall advise the State's Attorney, the parents, guardian, custodian or responsible relative or their counsel of the factual contents and the conclusions of the reports prepared for the use of the court and considered by it, and afford fair opportunity, if requested, to controvert them. The court may order, however, that the documents containing such reports need not be submitted to inspection, or that sources of confidential information need not be disclosed except to the attorneys for the parties. Factual contents, conclusions, documents and sources disclosed by the court under this paragraph shall not be further disclosed without the express approval of the court pursuant to an in camera hearing. (3) A record of a prior continuance under supervision under Section 2-20, whether successfully completed with regard to the child's health, safety and best interest, or not, is admissible at the dispositional hearing. (4) On its own motion or that of the State's Attorney, a parent, guardian, custodian, responsible relative or counsel, the court may adjourn the hearing for a reasonable period to receive reports or other evidence, if the adjournment is consistent with the health, safety and best interests of the minor, but in no event shall continuances be granted so that the dispositional hearing occurs more than 6 months after the initial removal of a minor from the minor's home. In scheduling investigations and hearings, the court shall give priority to proceedings in which a minor has been removed from the minor's home before an order of disposition has been made. (5) Unless already set by the court, at the conclusion of the dispositional hearing, the court shall set the date for the first permanency hearing, to be conducted under subsections (2), (2.3), and (2.4) of Section 2-28, which shall be held: (a) within 12 months from the date temporary custody was taken, (b) if the parental rights of both parents have been terminated in accordance with the procedure described in subsection (5) of Section 2-21, within 30 days of the termination of parental rights and appointment of a guardian with power to consent to adoption, or (c) in accordance with subsection (2) of Section 2-13.1. (6) When the court declares a child to be a ward of the court and awards guardianship to the Department of Children and Family Services: (a) the court shall admonish the parents, guardian, | custodian or responsible relative that the parents must cooperate with the Department of Children and Family Services, comply with the terms of the service plans, and correct the conditions which require the child to be in care, or risk termination of their parental rights; and |
(b) the court shall inquire of the parties of any | intent to proceed with termination of parental rights of a parent: |
(A) whose identity still remains unknown; (B) whose whereabouts remain unknown; or (C) who was found in default at the adjudicatory | hearing and has not obtained an order setting aside the default in accordance with Section 2-1301 of the Code of Civil Procedure. |
(Source: P.A. 103-22, eff. 8-8-23; 103-1061, eff. 2-5-25.) Notes of Decisions
Cited in 185
cases (94 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: In Re Austin W.
In Re Austin W. (2005)
“See 705 ILCS 405/2-22 (West 2000). At this hearing, it was determined that it was in Austin's best interests that he be made a ward of the court and placed in the custody and guardianship of DCFS.”
In Re Jay H. (2009)
“) 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2008). *289 The plain language of section 2-22(1) of the Juvenile Court Act shows the legislature's intent to give trial courts wide latitude in admitting evidence at the dispositional hearing.”
In re Z.J. (2021)
“705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2018); Jay H., 395 Ill.”
In re CA. B. (2019)
“) 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2016). As this court has recognized, “[i]t was the legislature’s intent, through the above section, to give the trial court wide latitude in considering evidence that is relevant and helpful to the court’s determination of a proper disposition.”
In re Davon H. (2016)
“">2014 IL App (1st) 140984, ¶ 42 ; 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2012). “The court may place the minor under DCFS guardianship if the court determines that the child’s parents ‘are unfit or are unable, for some reason other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect,…”
In re M.D. (2022)
“3d 1227 (citing 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2016)). Customarily, to inform the court of the “totality of the circumstances surrounding the child’s life,” DCFS prepares a “dispositional report” for the court.”
In re Haley D. (2011)
“-3- See 705 ILCS 405/2-22 (West 2008). Based on the evidence presented at that hearing, the circuit court entered an order making Haley a ward of the court and setting as the permanency goal the return of Haley to her parents within 12 months.”
In re M.M. (2016)
“” 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2012). According to the State: “These provisions demonstrate that the best interests of the child are paramount.”
In re AL. S. (2017)
“705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2014); In re J.”
In Re Faith B. (2005)
“In addition, the court must decide "the proper disposition best serving the health, safety and interests of the minor[s] and the public" and consider "the permanency goal set for the minor[s], the nature of the service plan for the minor[s] and the services delivered and to be…”
In Re Jerome F. (2001)
“705 ILCS 405/2-22(2) (West 1998). The Act, as amended in 1998, states that notice shall be in accord with Supreme Court Rule 11 (145 Ill.”
In Re DS (2000)
“The dispositional hearing on the adjudicatory petition affords the trial court the opportunity to hear further evidence to determine the minor's best interests, consider the permanency goal set for the minor, the nature of the service plan for the minor and services delivered…”
— 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) — 135 cases
In Re Jay H. (2009)
“) 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2008). *289 The plain language of section 2-22(1) of the Juvenile Court Act shows the legislature's intent to give trial courts wide latitude in admitting evidence at the dispositional hearing.”
In Re Austin W. (2005)
“See 705 ILCS 405/2-22 (West 2000). At this hearing, it was determined that it was in Austin's best interests that he be made a ward of the court and placed in the custody and guardianship of DCFS.”
In re Z.J. (2021)
“705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2018); Jay H., 395 Ill.”
In re CA. B. (2019)
“) 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2016). As this court has recognized, “[i]t was the legislature’s intent, through the above section, to give the trial court wide latitude in considering evidence that is relevant and helpful to the court’s determination of a proper disposition.”
In re Davon H. (2016)
“">2014 IL App (1st) 140984, ¶ 42 ; 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2012). “The court may place the minor under DCFS guardianship if the court determines that the child’s parents ‘are unfit or are unable, for some reason other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect,…”
— 705 ILCS 405/2-22(2) — 9 cases
In Re Jerome F. (2001)
“705 ILCS 405/2-22(2) (West 1998). The Act, as amended in 1998, states that notice shall be in accord with Supreme Court Rule 11 (145 Ill.”
In Re Andrea F. (2002)
In re D.P. (2011)
In re Mar. S. (2023)
— 705 ILCS 405/2-22(4) — 11 cases
In Re John CM (2008)
In re AL. P (2017)
In re L.W. (2021)
In Re DS (2000)
“The dispositional hearing on the adjudicatory petition affords the trial court the opportunity to hear further evidence to determine the minor's best interests, consider the permanency goal set for the minor, the nature of the service plan for the minor and services delivered…”
In re V.S. (2023)
— 705 ILCS 405/2-22(5) — 2 cases
In Re KB (2000)
In Re TLC (1996)
— 705 ILCS 405/2-22(6) — 10 cases
In Re CN (2001)
C.L. v. Makiah L. (2018)
In re J.D. (2018)
People v. Griffin (2003)
In re D.F. (2024)
— 705 ILCS 405/2-22(6)(a) — 1 case
In Re DS (2000)
“The dispositional hearing on the adjudicatory petition affords the trial court the opportunity to hear further evidence to determine the minor's best interests, consider the permanency goal set for the minor, the nature of the service plan for the minor and services delivered…”
— 705 ILCS 405/2-22(a) — 1 case
In re Olanni W. (2026)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|