ILCS » Chapter 705 · Act 405
Illinois Compiled Statutes

705 ILCS 405/5-750 (2026)

Commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(705 ILCS 405/5-750)
    Sec. 5-750. Commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice.
    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this Section, when any delinquent has been adjudged a ward of the court under this Act, the court may commit the minor to the Department of Juvenile Justice, if it finds that (a) the minor's parents, guardian or legal custodian are unfit or are unable, for some reason other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train or discipline the minor, or are unwilling to do so, and the best interests of the minor and the public will not be served by placement under Section 5-740, or it is necessary to ensure the protection of the public from the consequences of criminal activity of the delinquent; and (b) commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice is the least restrictive alternative based on evidence that efforts were made to locate less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement and the reasons why efforts were unsuccessful in locating a less restrictive alternative to secure confinement. Before the court commits a minor to the Department of Juvenile Justice, it shall make a finding that secure confinement is necessary, following a review of the following individualized factors:
        (A) Age of the minor.
        (B) Criminal background of the minor.
        (C) Review of results of any assessments of the
    
minor, including child centered assessments such as the CANS.
        (D) Educational background of the minor, indicating
    
whether the minor has ever been assessed for a learning disability, and if so what services were provided as well as any disciplinary incidents at school.
        (E) Physical, mental and emotional health of the
    
minor, indicating whether the minor has ever been diagnosed with a health issue and if so what services were provided and whether the minor was compliant with services.
        (F) Community based services that have been provided
    
to the minor, and whether the minor was compliant with the services, and the reason the services were unsuccessful.
        (G) Services within the Department of Juvenile
    
Justice that will meet the individualized needs of the minor.
    (1.5) Before the court commits a minor to the Department of Juvenile Justice, the court must find reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate the need for the minor to be removed from the home, or reasonable efforts cannot, at this time, for good cause, prevent or eliminate the need for removal, and removal from home is in the best interests of the minor, the minor's family, and the public.
    (2) When a minor of the age of at least 13 years is adjudged delinquent for the offense of first degree murder, the court shall declare the minor a ward of the court and order the minor committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice until the minor's 21st birthday, without the possibility of aftercare release, furlough, or non-emergency authorized absence for a period of 5 years from the date the minor was committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice, except that the time that a minor spent in custody for the instant offense before being committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice shall be considered as time credited towards that 5 year period. Upon release from a Department facility, a minor adjudged delinquent for first degree murder shall be placed on aftercare release until the age of 21, unless sooner discharged from aftercare release or custodianship is otherwise terminated in accordance with this Act or as otherwise provided for by law. Nothing in this subsection (2) shall preclude the State's Attorney from seeking to prosecute a minor as an adult as an alternative to proceeding under this Act.
    (3) Except as provided in subsection (2), the commitment of a delinquent to the Department of Juvenile Justice shall be for an indeterminate term which shall automatically terminate upon the delinquent attaining the age of 21 years or upon completion of that period for which an adult could be committed for the same act, whichever occurs sooner, unless the delinquent is sooner discharged from aftercare release or custodianship is otherwise terminated in accordance with this Act or as otherwise provided for by law.
    (3.5) Every delinquent minor committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice under this Act shall be eligible for aftercare release without regard to the length of time the minor has been confined or whether the minor has served any minimum term imposed. Aftercare release shall be administered by the Department of Juvenile Justice, under the direction of the Director. Unless sooner discharged, the Department of Juvenile Justice shall discharge a minor from aftercare release upon completion of the following aftercare release terms:
        (a) One and a half years from the date a minor is
    
released from a Department facility, if the minor was committed for a Class X felony;
        (b) One year from the date a minor is released
    
from a Department facility, if the minor was committed for a Class 1 or 2 felony; and
        (c) Six months from the date a minor is released
    
from a Department facility, if the minor was committed for a Class 3 felony or lesser offense.
    (4) When the court commits a minor to the Department of Juvenile Justice, it shall order the minor conveyed forthwith to the appropriate reception station or other place designated by the Department of Juvenile Justice, and shall appoint the Director of Juvenile Justice legal custodian of the minor. The clerk of the court shall issue to the Director of Juvenile Justice a certified copy of the order, which constitutes proof of the Director's authority. No other process need issue to warrant the keeping of the minor.
    (5) If a minor is committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice, the clerk of the court shall forward to the Department:
        (a) the sentencing order and copies of committing
    
petition;
        (b) all reports;
        (c) the court's statement of the basis for ordering
    
the disposition;
        (d) any sex offender evaluations;
        (e) any risk assessment or substance abuse
    
treatment eligibility screening and assessment of the minor by an agent designated by the State to provide assessment services for the courts;
        (f) the number of days, if any, which the minor
    
has been in custody and for which the minor is entitled to credit against the sentence, which information shall be provided to the clerk by the sheriff;
        (g) any medical or mental health records or
    
summaries of the minor;
        (h) the municipality where the arrest of the minor
    
occurred, the commission of the offense occurred, and the minor resided at the time of commission;
        (h-5) a report detailing the minor's criminal history
    
in a manner and form prescribed by the Department of Juvenile Justice;
        (i) all additional matters which the court directs
    
the clerk to transmit; and
        (j) all police reports for sex offenses as defined by
    
the Sex Offender Management Board Act.
    (6) Whenever the Department of Juvenile Justice lawfully discharges from its custody and control a minor committed to it, the Director of Juvenile Justice shall petition the court for an order terminating the minor's custodianship. The custodianship shall terminate automatically 30 days after receipt of the petition unless the court orders otherwise.
    (7) If, while on aftercare release, a minor committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice who resides in this State is charged under the criminal laws of this State, the criminal laws of any other state, or federal law with an offense that could result in a sentence of imprisonment within the Department of Corrections, the penal system of any state, or the federal Bureau of Prisons, the commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice and all rights and duties created by that commitment are automatically suspended pending final disposition of the criminal charge. If the minor is found guilty of the criminal charge and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary system of the Department of Corrections, the penal system of any state, or the federal Bureau of Prisons, the commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice shall be automatically terminated. If the criminal charge is dismissed, the minor is found not guilty, or the minor completes a criminal sentence other than imprisonment within the Department of Corrections, the penal system of any state, or the federal Bureau of Prisons, the previously imposed commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice and the full aftercare release term shall be automatically reinstated unless custodianship is sooner terminated. Nothing in this subsection (7) shall preclude the court from ordering another sentence under Section 5-710 of this Act or from terminating the Department's custodianship while the commitment to the Department is suspended.
(Source: P.A. 102-350, eff. 8-13-21; 103-22, eff. 8-8-23.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case: In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 18× “See 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1.5) (West 2014). Third, the court found that commitment to the Department was the least restrictive alternative, given the unsuccessful efforts to come up with less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement.”
People v. Christopher K., 841 N.E.2d 945 (Ill. 2005). · cites it 2× “The trial court granted the State's EJJ motion, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, the jury found respondent guilty of first-degree murder.”
In re Raheem M., 2013 IL App (4th) 130585 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 5× “¶ 45 We next consider respondent’s argument the trial court erred as a matter of law in sending him to the DOJJ without first following the requirements found in section 5-750 of -11- the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/5-750 (West 2012)). Section 5-750 states in part: “[W]hen…”
In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 18× “See 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1.5) (West 2014). Third, the court found that commitment to the Department was the least restrictive alternative, given the unsuccessful efforts to come up with less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement.”
In re Justin F., 2016 IL App (1st) 153257 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “At the sentencing hearing, the parties presented no evidence concerning the services available within the Department of Juvenile Justice (DoJJ) that could meet Justin's needs.”
People v. Luis R., 941 N.E.2d 136 (Ill. 2010). “705 ILCS 405/5-750(3) (West 2008). Finally, by statute, all proceedings under the Act "automatically terminate upon [respondent's] attaining the age of 21 years.”
In Re Justin LV, 882 N.E.2d 621 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 5× “" 705 ILCS 405/5-750(3) (West 2004). When doing so, the court "shall appoint the Assistant Director of Corrections, Juvenile Division, legal custodian of the minor.”
In re AL. S., 2017 IL App (4th) 160737 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “Compare 705 ILCS 405/5-750 (West 2008), with 705 ILCS 405/5-750 (West 2014).”
Cheryl Miller v. Dr. Jolene Harbaug, 698 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2012). “See Juvenile Court Act of 1987, 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1). This case involves the sad fate of one such minor, Jamal Miller, who was incarcerated at Illinois Youth Center (IYC) St.”
People v. Salas, 961 N.E.2d 831 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “The maximum sentence for a juvenile tried for murder in juvenile court is commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice until he turns 21 (705 ILCS 405/5-750(2) (West 2008)), whereas the minimum sentence for a juvenile tried in adult criminal court is 20 years in prison (730…”
In re: Ashley C., 2014 IL App (4th) 131014 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 3× “” 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(b) (West 2012). ¶ 24 In making a decision to commit a minor, the statute further requires the trial court to: “[M]ake a finding that secure confinement is necessary, following a review of the following individualized factors: (A) Age of the minor.”
In re: Shelby R., 2012 IL App (4th) 110191 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “1, 2012) (amending 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(A)-(G) (West Supp. 2011)).”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1) — 14 cases
In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1.5) (West 2014). Third, the court found that commitment to the Department was the least restrictive alternative, given the unsuccessful efforts to come up with less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement.”
Cheryl Miller v. Dr. Jolene Harbaug, 698 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2012). “See Juvenile Court Act of 1987, 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1). This case involves the sad fate of one such minor, Jamal Miller, who was incarcerated at Illinois Youth Center (IYC) St.”
In re Justin F., 2016 IL App (1st) 153257 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “At the sentencing hearing, the parties presented no evidence concerning the services available within the Department of Juvenile Justice (DoJJ) that could meet Justin's needs.”
In re Nasie M., 2015 IL App (1st) 151678 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
In re D.B., 2023 IL App (1st) 231146-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(A) — 2 cases
In re: Shelby R., 2012 IL App (4th) 110191 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “1, 2012) (amending 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(A)-(G) (West Supp. 2011)).”
In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1.5) (West 2014). Third, the court found that commitment to the Department was the least restrictive alternative, given the unsuccessful efforts to come up with less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement.”
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(D) — 3 cases
In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1.5) (West 2014). Third, the court found that commitment to the Department was the least restrictive alternative, given the unsuccessful efforts to come up with less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement.”
In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1.5) (West 2014). Third, the court found that commitment to the Department was the least restrictive alternative, given the unsuccessful efforts to come up with less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement.”
In re J.I., 2019 IL App (1st) 191040-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(E) — 3 cases
In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1.5) (West 2014). Third, the court found that commitment to the Department was the least restrictive alternative, given the unsuccessful efforts to come up with less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement.”
In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1.5) (West 2014). Third, the court found that commitment to the Department was the least restrictive alternative, given the unsuccessful efforts to come up with less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement.”
In re J.I., 2019 IL App (1st) 191040-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(G) — 3 cases
In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1.5) (West 2014). Third, the court found that commitment to the Department was the least restrictive alternative, given the unsuccessful efforts to come up with less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement.”
In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1.5) (West 2014). Third, the court found that commitment to the Department was the least restrictive alternative, given the unsuccessful efforts to come up with less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement.”
In re J.I., 2019 IL App (1st) 191040-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(a) — 2 cases
In re Raheem M., 2013 IL App (4th) 130585 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “¶ 45 We next consider respondent’s argument the trial court erred as a matter of law in sending him to the DOJJ without first following the requirements found in section 5-750 of -11- the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/5-750 (West 2012)). Section 5-750 states in part: “[W]hen…”
In re: Shelby R., 2012 IL App (4th) 110191 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “1, 2012) (amending 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(A)-(G) (West Supp. 2011)).”
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(b) — 8 cases
In re Raheem M., 2013 IL App (4th) 130585 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “¶ 45 We next consider respondent’s argument the trial court erred as a matter of law in sending him to the DOJJ without first following the requirements found in section 5-750 of -11- the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/5-750 (West 2012)). Section 5-750 states in part: “[W]hen…”
In re Johnathan T., 2021 IL App (5th) 200247 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
In re: Ashley C., 2014 IL App (4th) 131014 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “” 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(b) (West 2012). ¶ 24 In making a decision to commit a minor, the statute further requires the trial court to: “[M]ake a finding that secure confinement is necessary, following a review of the following individualized factors: (A) Age of the minor.”
In re Henry P., 2014 IL App (1st) 130241 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).
In re Henry P., 2014 IL App (1st) 130241 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(b)(A) — 1 case
In re: Ashley C., 2014 IL App (4th) 131014 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “” 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(b) (West 2012). ¶ 24 In making a decision to commit a minor, the statute further requires the trial court to: “[M]ake a finding that secure confinement is necessary, following a review of the following individualized factors: (A) Age of the minor.”
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(b)(F) — 1 case
In re: Ashley C., 2014 IL App (4th) 131014 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “” 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(b) (West 2012). ¶ 24 In making a decision to commit a minor, the statute further requires the trial court to: “[M]ake a finding that secure confinement is necessary, following a review of the following individualized factors: (A) Age of the minor.”
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1)(b)(G) — 1 case
In re J.M.A., 2019 IL App (3d) 190346 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(2) — 12 cases
People v. Christopher K., 841 N.E.2d 945 (Ill. 2005). “The trial court granted the State's EJJ motion, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, the jury found respondent guilty of first-degree murder.”
People v. Salas, 961 N.E.2d 831 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “The maximum sentence for a juvenile tried for murder in juvenile court is commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice until he turns 21 (705 ILCS 405/5-750(2) (West 2008)), whereas the minimum sentence for a juvenile tried in adult criminal court is 20 years in prison (730…”
People v. Destiny P. (In Re Destiny P.), 2017 IL 120796 (Ill. 2017).
In Re Jw, 804 N.E.2d 1094 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
In Re Fg, 743 N.E.2d 181 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(3) — 8 cases
People v. Luis R., 941 N.E.2d 136 (Ill. 2010). “705 ILCS 405/5-750(3) (West 2008). Finally, by statute, all proceedings under the Act "automatically terminate upon [respondent's] attaining the age of 21 years.”
In Re Justin LV, 882 N.E.2d 621 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “" 705 ILCS 405/5-750(3) (West 2004). When doing so, the court "shall appoint the Assistant Director of Corrections, Juvenile Division, legal custodian of the minor.”
In Re Jonathon CB, 958 N.E.2d 227 (Ill. 2011).
In re D.B., 2023 IL App (1st) 231146-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
In Re Ks, 822 N.E.2d 526 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(4) — 2 cases
In Re Justin LV, 882 N.E.2d 621 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “" 705 ILCS 405/5-750(3) (West 2004). When doing so, the court "shall appoint the Assistant Director of Corrections, Juvenile Division, legal custodian of the minor.”
In re Justin L.V., 377 Ill. App. 3d 1073 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(A) — 1 case
In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1.5) (West 2014). Third, the court found that commitment to the Department was the least restrictive alternative, given the unsuccessful efforts to come up with less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement.”
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(D) — 1 case
In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1.5) (West 2014). Third, the court found that commitment to the Department was the least restrictive alternative, given the unsuccessful efforts to come up with less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement.”
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(G) — 1 case
In re Ronald J., 2017 IL App (4th) 160855 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-750(1.5) (West 2014). Third, the court found that commitment to the Department was the least restrictive alternative, given the unsuccessful efforts to come up with less restrictive alternatives to secure confinement.”
— 705 ILCS 405/5-750(b) — 1 case
In re J.I., 2019 IL App (1st) 191040-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
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.