705 ILCS 405/2-4
Dependent minor
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(705 ILCS 405/2-4)
(from Ch. 37, par. 802-4)
Sec. 2-4. Dependent minor.
(1) Those who are dependent include any minor under 18 years of age or a minor 18 years of age or older for whom the court has made a finding of probable cause to believe that the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent under subsection (1) of Section 2-10 prior to the minor's 18th birthday:
(a) who is without a parent, guardian or legal | custodian; |
(b) who is without proper care because of the | physical or mental disability of the minor's parent, guardian or custodian; |
(c) who is without proper medical or other remedial | care recognized under State law or other care necessary for the minor's well being through no fault, neglect or lack of concern by the minor's parents, guardian or custodian, provided that no order may be made terminating parental rights, nor may a minor be removed from the custody of the minor's parents for longer than 6 months, pursuant to an adjudication as a dependent minor under this subdivision (c), unless it is found to be in the minor's best interest by the court or the case automatically closes as provided under Section 2-31 of this Act; or |
(d) who has a parent, guardian or legal custodian who | with good cause wishes to be relieved of all residual parental rights and responsibilities, guardianship or custody, and who desires the appointment of a guardian of the person with power to consent to the adoption of the minor under Section 2-29. |
(2) This Section does not apply to a minor who would be included
herein solely for the purpose of qualifying for financial assistance for the minor, the minor's
parent or parents, guardian or custodian or to a minor solely because the minor's parent or parents or guardian has left the minor for any period of time in the care
of an adult relative, who the parent or parents or guardian know is both a mentally capable adult relative and physically capable adult relative, as defined by this Act.
(3) The changes made by this amendatory Act of the 101st General Assembly apply to a case that is pending on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 101st General Assembly. (Source: P.A. 103-22, eff. 8-8-23.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: In re D.M.
In re D.M. (2016)
“" 705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(a), (b) (West 2012). The Act defines "Minor" as "a person under the age of 21 years subject to this Act.”
In Re EB (2008)
“, age 4, were adjudicated dependent under subsection (c) of section 2-4(1) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987(Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(c) (West 2006)), the so-called no-fault dependency provision.”
In Re Gwynne P. (2005)
“The court further determined that Gwynne was a dependent minor as defined by section 2-4 of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-4 (West 2002)). After making the foregoing findings, the court immediately convened a dispositional hearing pursuant to section 2-21(2) of the…”
In Re SW (2003)
“See 705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(c) (West 2000). After a dispositional hearing, S.”
In Re ADW (1996)
“was dependent as she was without parent, guardian, or legal custodian (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(a) (West 1994)) and neglected, in that her environment was injurious to her well-being (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 1994)).”
In re Diamond M. (2011)
“See 705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(c) (West 2010). In an extensive ruling read into the record, the trial court found that Diamond was neglected, primarily based on respondent’s refusal to allow Diamond to return home from Hartgrove and her failure to arrange for suitable alternative care.”
In re Timothy T. (2003)
“□ The minor is dependent as defined by 705 ILCS 405/2-4 in that the minor: is without a parent, guardian or legal custodian as defined by 705 ILCS 405/2-4 (1) (a) is without proper care because of the physical or mental disability of a parent, guardian or legal custodian as…”
In re Charles W. (2014)
“In an amended petition, the State alleged that Darious was dependent pursuant to 2-4(1)(b) (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(b) (West 2010)) because he was “without proper care because of the physical or mental disability of his parent, guardian or custodian.”
In re Charles W. (2014)
“In an amended petition, the State alleged that Darious was dependent pursuant to 2- 4(1)(b) (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(b) (West 2010)) because he was "without proper care because of the physical or mental disability of his parent, guardian or custodian.”
In re V.S. (2025)
“” The court also made a dependency finding under section 2-4 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-4 (West 2020)) because the minor was under 18 and was without proper care because of the physical or mental disability of the parent or guardian.”
In re Shauntae P. (2012)
“The petitions further alleged that the minors were neglected based upon an environment injurious to their welfare pursuant to section 2-4(1)(d) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(d) (West 2008)) because “there have been instances of domestic violence between the ***…”
In Re ZL (2008)
“, to determine whether respondents met their burden under the statute of demonstrating "good cause.”
— 705 ILCS 405/2-4(1) — 2 cases
In re Christina M. (2002)
In re: Christopher S. (2006)
— 705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(a) — 12 cases
In re D.M. (2016)
“" 705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(a), (b) (West 2012). The Act defines "Minor" as "a person under the age of 21 years subject to this Act.”
In Re ADW (1996)
“was dependent as she was without parent, guardian, or legal custodian (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(a) (West 1994)) and neglected, in that her environment was injurious to her well-being (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 1994)).”
In re Mi.S. (2016)
In Re YB (1996)
In re C.F. (2022)
— 705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(b) — 15 cases
In re D.M. (2016)
“" 705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(a), (b) (West 2012). The Act defines "Minor" as "a person under the age of 21 years subject to this Act.”
In re Charles W. (2014)
“In an amended petition, the State alleged that Darious was dependent pursuant to 2-4(1)(b) (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(b) (West 2010)) because he was “without proper care because of the physical or mental disability of his parent, guardian or custodian.”
In re Charles W. (2014)
“In an amended petition, the State alleged that Darious was dependent pursuant to 2- 4(1)(b) (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(b) (West 2010)) because he was "without proper care because of the physical or mental disability of his parent, guardian or custodian.”
People v. Wanda A. (2006)
In re V.S. (2023)
— 705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(c) — 19 cases
In Re EB (2008)
“, age 4, were adjudicated dependent under subsection (c) of section 2-4(1) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987(Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(c) (West 2006)), the so-called no-fault dependency provision.”
In Re SW (2003)
“See 705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(c) (West 2000). After a dispositional hearing, S.”
In re Diamond M. (2011)
“See 705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(c) (West 2010). In an extensive ruling read into the record, the trial court found that Diamond was neglected, primarily based on respondent’s refusal to allow Diamond to return home from Hartgrove and her failure to arrange for suitable alternative care.”
In re Rayshawn H. (2014)
In re J.S. (2012)
— 705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(d) — 3 cases
In re Shauntae P. (2012)
“The petitions further alleged that the minors were neglected based upon an environment injurious to their welfare pursuant to section 2-4(1)(d) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(d) (West 2008)) because “there have been instances of domestic violence between the ***…”
In Re ZL (2008)
“, to determine whether respondents met their burden under the statute of demonstrating "good cause.”
In Re Lh (2008)
— 705 ILCS 405/2-4(c) — 2 cases
In Re Diamond M. (2011)
In re Collins-Maat (1996)
— 705 ILCS 405/2-4(d) — 1 case
In Re ZL (2008)
“, to determine whether respondents met their burden under the statute of demonstrating "good cause.”
— 705 ILCS 405/2-4(l)(c) — 1 case
In Re TLC (1996)
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.
|