Case Highlight: In re J.M. (Ill Ct App)

This is just a quick post because rarely do I write about something and then immediately have a case that makes the exact point.

Last Monday I discussed the adjudication hearing and relative burdens of proof. I did this in the context of the Uniform StICWA assigning ICWA's requirements to specific hearings. While this Illinois case is a bit of a mess (the briefing confused/annoyed the court of appeals, the case moved across state jurisdictions, ultimate placement was with dad), it does go into detail about adjudication versus disposition:

[Illinois law] requires a bifurcated process; the adjudicatory hearing is conducted separately from the dispositional hearing. In re Timothy T., 343 Ill. App. 3d 1260, 1265 (2003). At the adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court “shall first consider only” whether the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent. 705 ILCS 405/2-18(1) (West 2024). If the court does not make such a finding, it must dismiss the petition and discharge the minor. Id. Only after an adjudication may the court conduct a dispositional hearing to decide whether the minor should be made a ward of the court and, if so, what disposition serves the minor’s health, safety, and best interests. In re Z.L., 2021 IL 126931, ¶¶ 59-60.

In Illinois, as in most (all?) states, the standard is preponderance of the evidence at that adjudicatory hearing. So the court goes on to write:

Here, although the circuit court applied the clear and convincing burden of proof at the adjudicatory hearing, there was no requirement to do so. Even assuming that ICWA applies, it makes no provision for an adjudicatory hearing and thus does not mandate a burden of proof. The Act [Illinois law], however, does so provide. Pursuant to the Act, at the adjudicatory hearing, the standard of proof in the nature of civil proceedings is applicable. 705 ILCS 405/2-18(1) (West 2024); see Best, 223 Ill. 2d at 349 (an adjudicatory hearing is civil in nature such that a finding of abuse need only be supported by a preponderance of the evidence); In re Aniylah B.,2016 IL App (1st) 153662,¶ 41 (“It is the State’s burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the minor was neglected.”). As both burdens of proof apply the same standard of review, notwithstanding the circuit court’s imposition of the higher burden, we review the circuit court’s finding at the adjudicatory hearing under the manifest weight of the evidence standard.

And in Illinois, manifest weight of the evidence is how the appellate court reviews a preponderance standard as well as a clear and convincing standard. The difference between the two is particularly important at the trial court level. In this case, the trial court did apply the clear and convincing ICWA standard at adjudication, but the appellate court is saying ICWA's plain language does not require that. Instead, the appellate court finds that Illinois' own law is specific, and therefore what the trial court should follow. Adopting the Uniform StICWA in a place like Illinois would directly address this issue by making state law the ICWA burden required at adjudication.