J.M., In re
Decision Date | 03 February 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 2-86-0596,2-86-0596 |
Citation | 503 N.E.2d 1167,151 Ill.App.3d 1037,105 Ill.Dec. 161 |
Parties | , 105 Ill.Dec. 161 In re J.M., A Minor, Respondent-Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
William J. McCarron, pro se.
James E. Ryan, State's Atty., Wheaton, William L. Browers, State's Atty. Appellate Service Com'n, Elgin, for appellee.
Respondent, the minor's father, appeals from the trial court's order adjudicating J.M. a minor requiring authoritative intervention. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 37, par. 702-3). The State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal which we ordered taken with the case. On review, we conclude that the appeal should be dismissed because it is not an appeal from a final judgment nor a proper interlocutory appeal.
The State filed a petition alleging that J.M. was a minor who was absent from the home without the consent of her parents and beyond their control in circumstances which constituted a substantial or immediate danger to the minor's physical safety. J.M. was placed in the temporary custody of an appointed guardian.
An adjudicatory hearing was held at which time J.M. was found to be a minor requiring authoritative intervention. The question of wardship was reserved for the dispositional hearing which was scheduled to be held later. The dispositional hearing never took place because the respondent filed a pro se notice of appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 303 (103 Ill.2d R. 303), which governs the appeal of final judgments. Respondent amended the notice of appeal so that it would be considered an interlocutory appeal under Supreme Court Rule 307 (87 Ill.2d R. 307).
We lack jurisdiction to entertain respondent's appeal because he did not appeal from a final judgment. In proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act, a dispositional order results in a final judgment for appeal purposes. (In re J.N. (1982), 91 Ill.2d 122, 127, 61 Ill.Dec. 776, 435 N.E.2d 473.) In this case, no dispositional order was filed; rather, only an adjudicatory hearing was held. Adjudicatory orders are generally not appealable because they are not final orders. See, e.g., In re Johnson (1981), 102 Ill.App.3d 1005, 1014, 58 Ill.Dec. 31, 429 N.E.2d 1364; In re Smith (1980), 80 Ill.App.3d 380, 381, 35 Ill.Dec. 635, 399 N.E.2d 701.
One case has held that an adjudication of wardship is a final judgment for the purposes of an appeal. (In re Tingle (1977), 52 Ill.App.3d 251, 255, 9 Ill.Dec. 853, 367 N.E.2d 287.) The court in Tingle relied on section 4-8(3) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 37, par. 704-8(3)) which provided that an adjudication of wardship was final and appealable. In 1978, section 4-8(3) was deleted. Under existing law, therefore, adjudicatory orders by themselves are not appealable.
The appellate court has jurisdiction to review only final judgments, except where a rule of the supreme court provides for an interlocutory appeal. (In re J.N. (1982), 91 Ill.2d 122, 126, 61 Ill.Dec. 776, 435 N.E.2d 473.) The only such specific provision is Supreme Court Rule 662 (87 Ill.2d R. 662), which grants a right of appeal from the orders of wardship when an order of disposition is not entered within 90 days thereafter. (In re Hershberger (1985), 132 Ill.App.3d 332, 334, 87 Ill.Dec. 479, 477 N.E.2d 80.) Respondent failed to comply with Rule 662 since 90 days had not elapsed since the adjudicatory order. In fact, less than 30 days had passed since the date of the adjudicatory order and the date a pro se notice of appeal was filed. Moreover, technically, the court reserved the question of wardship until the dispositional hearing.
The reason behind Supreme Court Rule 662 is explained in the Committee Comments, which provide:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
J.M., In re
...final judgment nor a proper interlocutory appeal, and the cause was remanded for a dispositional hearing. (In re J.M. (1987), 151 Ill.App.3d 1037, 105 Ill.Dec. 161, 503 N.E.2d 1167.) On remand at the dispositional hearing, the trial court determined it was in the best interests of J.M. to b......
- In re JJ
- Gendek v. Jehangir
-
Guzik, In re
...429 N.E.2d 1364.) Rather, the dispositional order is the final judgment from which the appeal is taken. (In re J.M. (1987), 151 Ill.App.3d 1037, 1038, 105 Ill.Dec. 161, 503 N.E.2d 1167, citing In re J.N. (1982), 91 Ill.2d 122, 127, 61 Ill.Dec. 776, 435 N.E.2d 473; In re Smith (1980), 80 Ill......