In re Mar. S.

242 N.E.3d 425

2023 IL App (1st) 231349

IN RE MAR. S. Jr. and Mac. S., Minors-Appellees,

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee,

v.Christina H., Respondent-Appellant).

No. 1-23-1349

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, FOURTH DIVISION.

Filed November 9, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Nos. 19 JA833, 19 JA835, Honorable Diane Pezanoski, Judge, presiding.

Sharone R. Mitchell Jr., Public Defender, of Chicago (Kevin Duffy Jr., Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham and Gina DiVito, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Charles P. Golbert, Public Guardian, of Chicago (Kass A. Plain and Carrie Fung, of counsel), for appellee.

OPINION

PRESIDING JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court with opinion.

¶ 1 Respondent Christina H., the mother of Mar. S. Jr. (Mar.) and Mac. S. (Mac.), brings an interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017), seeking vacatur of an order preventing her from copying the transcripts from dispositional and permanency hearings for her minor children and sharing them on social media sites. We affirm.

¶ 2 On August 2, 2019, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship alleging that 12-year-old Mar. and 3-year-old Mac. were neglected based on a lack of necessary care and an injurious environment and that they were abused based on a substantial risk of injury. Mar. also was abused because he suffered from excessive corporal punishment.

¶ 3 The State alleged that respondent had three prior indicated cases. An intact case was opened in February 2019 after Mar. was found with facial injuries caused by respondent. The State also alleged that Mar. and Mac. were left -home alone for several hours almost daily. Mar. had untreated mental health issues and was left to babysit his siblings. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) took protective custody of Mar. and Mac. after they were found outside at night, walking the streets alone.

¶ 4 On December 3, 2021, the court entered an adjudication order finding that Mar. and Mac. were abused or neglected based on a lack of necessary care, an injurious environment, and substantial risk of injury. Following a dispositional hearing held on January 14, 2022, the court adjudicated Mar. and Mac. wards of the court and found respondent unable to care for them.

¶ 5 The court also held a permanency hearing on January 14, 2022, and entered a permanency goal for Mar. of substitute care pending independence. Mac.’s permanency goal was to return home within 12 months. On December 2, 2022, Mac.’s permanency goal changed to private guardianship.

¶ 6 On March 3, 2023, the public guardian filed an emergency motion for a protective order, alleging:

"[Respondent] uses the internet to publicly post videos of parent-child visits, Administrative Case Reviews, Child and Family Team Meetings, and confidential court proceedings. The confidential court proceedings and Child and Family Team Meetings were illegally taped without participants’ knowledge or consent. Among other online sites, the videotaped court proceedings, Child and Family Team Meetings, therapy sessions and parent- child visits can be found on her YouTube channel."

¶ 7 On March 7, 2023, the court held a hearing on the emergency motion for a protective order. The public guardian informed the court that respondent posted videos of court hearings without consent of the parties. These videos identified Mar. and Mac. as being under the guardianship of DCFS. The public guardian argued that Mar. and Mac.:

"are not in this court system for any fault of their own. They are here because of the abuse and neglect. *** They are not juvenile [delinquents] and they don’t have, they should not be exposed to the public as being court-involved and have their privacy revealed to the general public."

¶ 8 The public guardian requested that the court order the immediate removal of all such videos.

¶ 9 The State agreed with the public guardian and provided multiple screen shots from photographs/videos depicting courtroom proceedings involving Mar. and Mac. as well as from videos of a child and family team meeting, an administrative case review, and a therapy session. These videos were posted on respondent’s Facebook page, as well as on TikTok and on her YouTube channel. The court noted its concern that the videos identified Mar. and Mac as being "court-involved and being in the custody of DCFS" even though "these court proceedings are confidential."

¶ 10 The court ordered the removal of the offending videos from the social media sites, and ordered respondent to refrain from posting any similar videos or other information in the future that would publicly identify Mar. and Mae. as being court- involved and in the custody of DCFS. The court specifically ordered respondent not to record any court hearings, child and family team meetings, or administrative case reviews involving Mar. and Mac.

¶ 11 The court held a permanency hearing on June 30, 2023. Matthew Bauman, a supervisor with the National Youth Advocate Program, testified that he was assigned to Mar.’s case. Mar. has been in three different foster homes and attempted to set fire to one of those homes in December. He eloped in April and was gone for about three or four weeks before being found by police in central Illinois.

¶ 12 As of the date of the hearing, Mar. was 16-years-old, going into his junior year of high school, and living with his uncle. Mar. has unsupervised day and overnight visits with respondent. Bauman spoke with Mar.’s caseworker, who said that Mar.’s placement with his uncle was safe and appropriate and that his visits with respondent have been going well.

¶ 13 Bauman testified that respondent has completed all services except for individual therapy, but that her therapist says she is "making progress." Both respondent and Mar. want to live with each other. Bauman recommended that Mar. be returned home to respondent. The public guardian also asked the court to return Mar. to respondent’s care and custody under an order of protection. The State opposed Mar.’s return to respondent.

¶ 14 The court ordered that Mar. be returned to respondent under the supervision of the probation office. The court also ordered respondent to cooperate with DCFS and to comply with the terms of any aftercare plan.

¶ 15 The court then proceeded to the permanency hearing for Mac. The court noted that Mac. has had five different placements and that he had last been placed in a nonrelative foster home. Respondent informed the court that Mac. no longer was at the foster home and instead had been placed in the Lawrence Hall residential facility. Lawrence Hall has suspended any visitation between respondent and Mac. because Mac. has been "acting out" during visits and no longer wishes to see respondent.

¶ 16 Respondent sought a continuance of the permanency hearing so that Laurence Hall could conduct a staffing to address how to best reinstate respondent’s visits with Mac. The court granted the continu- ance and ordered that a staffing be held within 21 days.

¶ 17 The State then informed the court that the court coordinator had received an e-mail from "someone in mediation" indicating that respondent was asking for transcripts of prior proceedings and wanting to know "if there was an order in place limiting her access to obtaining transcripts." The court inquired of respondent’s attorney, who stated that respondent was acting on her own behalf in seeking transcripts from the dispositional and permanency hearings held on January 14, 2022.¹

¶ 18 The State argued that since respondent previously had published videos of confidential court proceedings on social media sites, the court should take special care to ensure that she not similarly publish the transcripts of the confidential January 14, 2022, hearings. Accordingly, the State requested that the court specifically order respondent not to share those transcripts "with anybody."

¶ 19 Respondent’s attorney stated that respondent has a large support network of persons helping her deal with the trauma of being in the child welfare system and that she would want to share the transcripts with those particular persons. She would not post the transcripts to Facebook or other social media sites where they could be publicly accessed.

¶ 20 The State suggested that respondent’s attorney obtain the transcripts and then respondent could view them in his office.

¶ 21 The court made an oral ruling allowing respondent to view the transcripts in her attorney’s office, where she could be joined by "professional people and clinical people," such as her therapist, who would review the transcripts with her.

¶ 22 On July 8, 2023, the court entered a written order nunc pro tunc to June 30, 2023, stating:

"Mother *** may view copies of transcripts as provided by her attorney of record, Mr. Steven Pick. Mother shall not copy the transcripts, photograph the transcripts, or duplicate them in any way. Mother shall not show the transcripts to anyone. Mother shall not share the transcripts via any means, including but not limited to by posting them on the internet or social media."

[1–3] ¶ 23 Respondent filed this Rule 307(a)(1) interlocutory appeal. Rule 307(a)(1) provides that an appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order granting an injunction. Ill. S. Ct. R. 307(a)(1) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017). An injunction is defined as " ‘a judicial process, by which a party is required to do a particular thing, or to refrain from doing a particular thing, according to the exigency of the writ, the most common sort of which operate as a restraint upon the party in the exercise of his real or supposed rights.’ " In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247, 261, 130 Ill.Dec. 225, 537 N.E.2d 292 (1989) (Minor I) (quoting Wangelin v. Goe, 50 Ill. 459, 463 (1869)). A protective order, such as the...