Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

In re Aaron R

387 Ill. App. 3d 1130 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In re Aaron R

23 Citing cases

  1. In re Vicente G

    408 Ill. App. 3d 678 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 8 times

    Whether a court failed to follow statutory requirements presents a question of law, which we review de novo. In re Aaron R., 387 Ill. App. 3d 1130, 902 N.E.2d 171 (2009). B. Discussion

  2. People v. N.R. (In re A.J.)

    2018 Ill. App. 5th 180165 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    According to mother, the court's failure to comply with the statutory requirements is grounds for reversal. See In re Aaron R., 387 Ill. App. 3d 1130, 1138-39 (2009). Mother points out that the only finding the court made concerning the minors in this instance was that the permanency goal to return the children home in 12 months had been achieved.

  3. Dowdell v. Roc II IL Lasalle, LLC

    2024 Ill. App. 231247 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    ¶ 20 Plaintiff cites to People v. Jones, 2016 IL App (1st) 142582, ¶ 12, and In re Aaron R., 387 Ill.App.3d 1130, 1139 (2009), as support that the standard of review here is de novo. Jones and Aaron R. provide that "[w]hether an order satisfies the legal criteria for a nunc pro tunc order is reviewed de novo."

  4. People v. C.M. (In re J.A.)

    2023 Ill. App. 230198 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    When making a best interest determination the circuit court should consider "the minor's physical safety and welfare, the development of his identity, his background ties, his sense of attachments, his wishes and longterm goals, his community ties, his need for permanence, and the preferences of the persons available to care for him." In re Aaron R., 387 Ill.App.3d 1130, 1138 (2008); 705 ILCS 405/1-3-3(4.05) (West 2022). We review a court's decision to terminate wardship and close a case under a manifest weight of the evidence standard when the court's weighing of facts is at issue. Aaron L., 2013 IL App (1st) 122808, ¶ 28 (citing Aaron R., 387 Ill.App.3d at 1141).

  5. People v. Sommer L. (In re M.G.)

    2018 Ill. App. 3d 170591 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 11 times

    ¶ 20 Whether a circuit court failed to follow statutory requirements is a question of law that is reviewed de novo . In re Aaron R. , 387 Ill. App. 3d 1130, 1138, 327 Ill.Dec. 416, 902 N.E.2d 171 (2009). As noted above, an appellate court will only reverse a trial court's dispositional findings when they are against the manifest weight of the evidence or the trial court abused its discretion in fashioning an improper dispositional order.

  6. People v. Jones

    2016 Ill. App. 142582 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 11 times

    Melchor, 226 Ill.2d at 32–33, 312 Ill.Dec. 632, 871 N.E.2d 32. Whether an order satisfies the legal criteria for a nunc pro tunc order is reviewed de novo. In re Aaron R., 387 Ill.App.3d 1130, 1139, 327 Ill.Dec. 416, 902 N.E.2d 171 (2009). ¶ 13 While defendant was on bond in this case he decided to surrender on another unrelated charge on October 17, 2013.

  7. People v. Aaron L. (In re Aaron L.)

    2013 Ill. App. 122808 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that the order terminating wardship and guardianship and discharging the case was ineffective under section 2–31 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/2–31 (West 2010)), where the circuit court entered a written form order and made no specific findings of fact

    ¶ 27 We find that, in addition to the court's failure to observe the requirements of the Act, the evidence presented at the September 27, 2012 hearing did not support the circuit court's decision to close Aaron's case and terminate his wardship and guardianship. See generally In re Aaron R., 387 Ill.App.3d 1130, 327 Ill.Dec. 416, 902 N.E.2d 171 (2009) (reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a termination of wardship and guardianship even after determining that the circuit court had been noncompliant with the requirements of section 2–31(2) of the Act). ¶ 28 A court's decision to terminate wardship and close a ward's case is reviewed under a manifest weight of the evidence standard when the court's weighing of facts is at issue.

  8. People v. Melanie H. (In re K.H.)

    2025 Ill. App. 4th 241304 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025)

    ¶ 56 "A trial court's determination to terminate wardship is reviewed under the manifest- weight-of-the evidence standard when the court's weighing of the facts is at issue; otherwise, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion." In re Aaron R., 387 Ill.App.3d 1130, 1141 (2009). A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when the opposite conclusion is "clearly evident." C.N., 196 Ill.2d at 208.

  9. People v. Lonisha M. (In re A.M.)

    2024 Ill. App. 4th 241017 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re D.V., 2024 IL App (4th) 240751, ¶ 52 (quoting In re Aaron R., 387 Ill.App.3d 1130, 1141 (2009)). A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.

  10. People v. Amanda M. (In re M.M.)

    2024 Ill. App. 4th 240766 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    ¶ 47" 'A trial court's determination to terminate wardship is reviewed under the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard when the court's weighing of facts is at issue; otherwise, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.'" In re D.V., 2024 IL App (4th) 240751, ¶ 52 (quoting In re Aaron R., 387 Ill.App.3d 1130, 1141 (2009)). Terminating wardship and closing a case is warranted where the "health, safety, and the best interests of the minor and the public no longer require the wardship of the court." 705