Background
D.D. was adjudicated neglected in 2020 and made a ward of the court. The circuit court later found his mother, A.C., unfit, terminated her parental rights, and set adoption by D.D.’s paternal grandparents as the goal. In a prior appeal, however, the appellate court reversed the unfitness finding, concluding that the mother had made major improvements and that the service recommendations had been confusing and at times contradictory.
On remand, the court ordered further evaluation and supervised contact, but D.D. had only one virtual visit with his mother before declining additional visits. The court spoke with D.D. three times. At the third interview, held August 13, 2025, the mother and her lawyer did not attend; the notice stated that the date was “only for minor to speak with Judge Murphy.” At a September guardianship hearing, the court incorporated that interview, heard testimony, and appointed the paternal grandparents as D.D.’s private guardians. The order required at least monthly reasonable visitation with the mother, subject to stated conditions.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. It held that it had jurisdiction to consider the August 13 interview because the trial court expressly incorporated it into the final guardianship hearing and relied on its conversations with D.D. in making its decision. The mother also had not forfeited her challenge: her claim was that the wording of the scheduling order prevented her from knowing that she and counsel could attend.
On the merits, however, the court found no violation of the Juvenile Court Act or statutory due process. It construed “only for minor to speak with Judge Murphy” as identifying the sole purpose of the court date, not barring the mother or her attorney from attending. The court further reasoned that the proceeding was an examination of the child, not a termination hearing; a transcript was made; and the mother did not show that she sought or was denied the transcript before the guardianship hearing.
Key Takeaways
- An interview with a minor may be reviewed on appeal when it was incorporated into the final guardianship proceeding.
- A scheduling notice stating that a hearing is only for a minor to speak with the judge did not, in this case, prohibit a parent or counsel from attending.
- The court affirmed private guardianship for the paternal grandparents while preserving minimum monthly visitation for the mother.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a distinction between a court-ordered child interview and a merits hearing at which parental rights are terminated. It also underscores that a parent challenging absence from a child interview must show that the court actually excluded the parent or counsel, rather than relying on an inference from the hearing notice.