People v. Ebony F. (In re Zariyah A.)

29 Citing cases

  1. People v. C.M. (In re G.M.)

    2019 Ill. App. 173049 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    In recognition of the fact that it may be in the best interest of a minor child to be removed from the custody of his or her biological parents, the Act sets forth a multi-step process that must be adhered to in order to determine whether a child should be made a ward of the state. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 18; In re Austin W., 214 Ill. 2d at 254; In re Zariyah A., 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 71. ¶ 21 The procedure commences when the State files a petition for adjudication of wardship on behalf of a minor child, which in turn, triggers a temporary custody hearing, during which the court must determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the child is neglected, abused, or dependent. 705 ILCS 405/2-10 (West 2016); In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d at 462; In re Zariyah A., 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 71. Following the placement of a minor child into temporary custody, the cause proceeds to an adjudication hearing, where the court must determine whether the preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that the child is, in fact, neglected, abused, or dependent. 705 ILCS 405/2-21(1) (West 2016); In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 19; In re Austin W., 214 Ill. 2d at 43; In re Zariyah A., 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 71. A preponderance of the evidence is the amount of evidence that leads the trier of fact to find that a condition is "more probable than not.

  2. People v. Saulsberry

    2021 Ill. App. 2d 181027 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 16 times

    ¶ 86 Defendant argues that, when offering evidence of an out-of-court statement for its effect on the listener, the proponent must demonstrate that the statement is necessary and not simply probative or helpful. In support, defendant relies on three cases: In re Zariyah A. , 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 89, 419 Ill.Dec. 576, 93 N.E.3d 695 (while an out-of-court statement to explain a person's course of conduct is not hearsay, it should be admitted only to the extent necessary to provide the explanation), People v. Hardimon , 2017 IL App (3d) 120772, ¶ 35, 413 Ill.Dec. 377, 77 N.E.3d 1184 (in general, "statements made by an investigating officer during an interview with the suspected defendant are admissible if they are necessary to demonstrate the effect of the statement on the defendant or to explain the defendant's response") and People v. Theis , 2011 IL App (2d) 091080, ¶ 33, 357 Ill.Dec. 425, 963 N.E.2d 378 ("an out-of-court statement that is necessary to show its effect on the listener's mind or explain the listener's subsequent actions is not hearsay"; without the police officer's statements to the defendant, the defendant's answers would

  3. People v. A.W. (In re A.S.)

    2020 Ill. App. 200560 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 15 times

    In the case at bar, respondent does not dispute that her medical records were generally admissible and also does not dispute that any admissions that she made to medical personnel were also admissible. See 705 ILCS 405/2-18(4)(a) (West 2016) (providing that medical records are admissible in adjudicatory proceedings); In re Chance H., 2019 IL App (1st) 180053, ¶ 49 (statements of a party are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule); In re Zariyah A., 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 93 (statements of a party contained in a properly-admitted document are admissible). Instead, she challenges only the admissibility of statements in the medical records indicating that she was brought to the hospital for violent or aggressive behavior.

  4. Marler v. Zachary Wulf & Bos Grp.

    2021 Ill. App. 200200 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Lovell, 397 Ill.App.3d 899. Wulf bases his argument on the proposition that" 'out-of-court statements that explain a [person's] course of conduct should be admitted only to the extent necessary to provide that explanation and should not be admitted if they reveal unnecessary and prejudicial information.'" In Re Zariyah A., 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 89 (quoting People v. O'Toole, 226 Ill.App.3d 974, 988 (1992)). ¶ 69 The record indicates that after Marler recalled what the employees said to him, his testimony continued:

  5. People v. Lisa J. (In re Z.J.)

    2020 IL App (2d) 190824 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 36 times

    In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 216-17 (2001) (reasonable progress); In re B'yata I., 2014 IL App (2d) 130558-B, ¶ 31 (reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility). Thus, the trial court here properly could consider the service plans and attribute to them whatever weight they were due, taking into account their hearsay nature. ¶ 68 Respondent insists that an opposite conclusion is dictated by two recent cases, In re Zariyah A., 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, and In re G.V., 2018 IL App (3d) 180272. In Zariyah, 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 86, the respondent argued that the trial court erred "by admitting and relying on hearsay evidence concerning the results of her mental health *** assessments."

  6. People v. S.J.B. (In re Z.B.)

    2018 Ill. App. 3d 170871 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    The State argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State's objection. Generally, a trial court's decision regarding the relevance and admissibility of evidence is within the trial court's discretion and the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. In re Zariyah A., 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 98.¶ 24 Evidence is relevant for trial purposes if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

  7. People v. S.T. (In re A.W.)

    2024 Ill. App. 221700 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    In this case, while the notice of appeal was filed in November 2022, multiple extensions of time were requested by the parties. Accordingly, we find good cause for issuing our decision after the 150-day deadline. See In re J.S., 2020 IL App (1st) 191119, ¶ 36 (finding good cause for issuing decision after deadline where there were extensions of time requested by the parties); In re Zariyah A., 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 69 (finding good cause for issuing decision after deadline where there were multiple extensions of time requested by the parties, among other procedural delays). ¶ 18 Turning to the merits of her appeal, respondent challenges only the adjudication findings as to her older two children, A.W. and Zya.T.; she does not challenge the findings as to the younger children, nor does she challenge the court's dispositional order.

  8. K.G. v. Christopher G.

    2021 Ill. App. 4th 210405 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    ¶ 71 The dispositional order in a case alleging neglect is a final and appealable order. In re Zariyah A., 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 65, 93 N.E.3d 695. Failure to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of its entry deprives the appellate court jurisdiction over issues addressed therein.

  9. People v. Vaneathea J. (In re N.K.)

    2021 Ill. App. 200534 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    We granted the mother's motion for leave to adopt the father's brief and argument. ¶ 91 The Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2018)) sets forth a process by which minors may be removed from their parents and made wards of the court. In re Zariyah A., 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 70. Under the Act, when a minor is taken into temporary protective custody, the State files a motion that alleges that the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent and that it is in the best interests of the minor and the public that the minor be adjudged a ward of the court. 705 ILCS 405/2-13(3) (West 2018).

  10. People v. Wanda W. (In re Chance H.)

    2019 IL App (1st) 180053 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 35 times

    People v. Downs , 2015 IL 117934, ¶ 15, 410 Ill.Dec. 239, 69 N.E.3d 784. Unlike at the dispositional hearing, at the adjudicatory hearing, the rules of evidence apply. 705 ILCS 405/2-18(1) (West 2016); In re Zariyah A. , 2017 IL App (1st) 170971, ¶ 71, 419 Ill.Dec. 576, 93 N.E.3d 695. The admission of evidence by the trial court will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.