People v. Juan Carlos M. (In re Juan M.)

Decision Date23 April 2012
Docket Number1–11–3192.,Nos. 1–11–3096,s. 1–11–3096
Citation968 N.E.2d 1184,360 Ill.Dec. 431,2012 IL App (1st) 113096
PartiesIn re JUAN M. and Kihara M., Minors, Respondents–Appellees (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner–Appellee, v. Juan Carlos M., Respondent–Appellant).
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois


Elizabeth Butler, Attorney at Law, Northbrook, for appellant.

Robert F. Harris, Public Guardian, Chicago (Kass A. Plain, Christopher Williams, of counsel), guardian ad litem.


Justice ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

[360 Ill.Dec. 434]¶ 1 On September 30, 2011, the trial court found nine-month old Juan M. to be: (1) physically abused; (2) abused due to a substantial risk of physical injury; and (3) neglected due to an injurious environment, pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (hereinafter, the Act) (705 ILCS 405/2–3(2)(i), (2)(ii), (1)(b) (West 2010)). The court also found Juan's older sister, 28–month–old Kihara M., to be neglected due to an injurious environment. After making these adjudicatory findings, the trial court held a dispositional hearing and found both parents (hereinafter, Mr. and Mrs. M.) unable to care for Juan and Kihara. Juan and Kihara were made wards of the court and placed under Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (hereinafter, DCFS) guardianship. Both parents timely appealed the trial court's adjudicatory and dispositional orders. This court consolidated both appeals on November 17, 2011 (No. 1–11–3096 (Mr. M.) and No. 1–11–3192 (Mrs. M.)). On December 29, 2011, Mrs. M.'s attorney, the public defender of Cook County, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). We took the Finley motion with the case. On Mr. M.'s appeal, we affirm the trial court's adjudicatory and dispositional orders on the basis that the trial court's findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. On Mrs. M.'s appeal, we grant the Finley motion and affirm on that basis.

¶ 2 Mr. and Mrs. M. are married and are the biological parents of Juan, born on December 13, 2010, and Kihara, born on May 11, 2009. Juan and Kihara came to the attention of DCFS on March 11, 2011, when Mr. and Mrs. M. took Juan to the emergency room at Westlake Community Hospital (hereinafter, Westlake) after Juan had trouble feeding and then became unresponsive. Upon transfer to Loyola University Medical Center (hereinafter, Loyola), he was diagnosed with two skull fractures and had bruising on his face. When Mr. and Mrs. M. could not explain his injuries, a hotline call was placed to DCFS, and a child-abuse and neglect investigation ensued.

¶ 3 On March 24, 2011, the State filed motions for temporary custody and petitions for adjudication of wardship for both Juan and Kihara. The State's adjudication petition alleged that on March 11, 2011, Juan was diagnosed with a skull fracture and had two bruises on his face. Mr. and Mrs. M. had no explanation for the injuries. Because of Juan's age and lack of mobility, and the seriousness of his injuries, medical personnel were concerned “that there is no explanation as to how he was injured.” The adjudication petitions for both Juan and Kihara alleged abuse due to substantial risk of physical injury, and neglect due to an injurious environment. On March 24, 2011, the trial court placed both children in DCFS temporary custody.

¶ 4 On May 4, 2011, the State moved to amend the adjudication petitions and requested the following sentence be added: “Medical personnel state that [Juan's] injuries are consistent with injuries suffered by non-accidental means.” The State requested a count of physical abuse for Juan. The trial court allowed the amendment to the petitions.

¶ 5 Doctor Maria Conchita Tuason was called as a witness at the adjudicatory hearing. Doctor Tuason was the primary care physician for Juan from his birth to DCFS involvement. Juan was born premature at 35 weeks. At birth he weighed 5.6 pounds and suffered from respiratory distress and hyperbilirubinemia (jaundice), which resolved soon after his birth. He was released from the hospital on December 24, 2010. On December 28, 2010, Mrs. M. brought Juan to Doctor Tuason's office for a follow-up examination. Doctor Tuason noted Juan was doing well. On January 6, 2011, Mrs. M. again brought Juan to Doctor Tuason's office for a physical examination. Doctor Tuason had no concerns about Juan's well-being at that time.

¶ 6 On January 13, 2010, Mrs. M. brought Juan to Doctor Tuason because he had a cold. Doctor Tuason noted Juan had some nasal congestion with mucus, “but nothing more significant than that.” Juan weighed 7 pounds, 10 ounces on that visit. On March 7, 2011, Mrs. M. brought Juan to Doctor Tuason for his scheduled vaccines. At that visit, Juan weighed 13 pounds. Doctor Tuason noted he had “some mark on the bitemporal area. It [was] blackish in color.” Doctor Tuason also testified Juan had a bracelet on his arm and was concerned that it presented a choking hazard.

¶ 7 During all of Juan's visits with Doctor Tuason, Kihara was present. Doctor Tuason described Kihara as a “regular one-and-a-half-year-old child, very interested in a lot of things.” Doctor Tuason told Mrs. M. to closely supervise Kihara when she was around Juan because Kihara was very active and “pulling a lot of things from anywhere.” Doctor Tuason had no other concerns about Juan.

¶ 8 The assistant State's Attorney showed Doctor Tuason the bracelet that Juan wore, and Doctor Tuason agreed it was “roughly three to four inches in circumference with * * * small beads around that circumference.” There was another larger bead attached to the bracelet. On cross-examination by the assistant public guardian, Doctor Tuason testified she saw Juan, prior to his head injuries, on December 28, 2010, January 6 and 13, 2011, and March 7, 2011. Doctor Tuason never saw Juan's head injuries when he was at Loyola.

¶ 9 The trial court asked Doctor Tuason about her testimony that she noticed a black discoloration on Juan's temple on March 7, 2011. She assessed that mark and testified there was not any surrounding swelling, so she did not think the mark was due to trauma.

¶ 10 Moises Cruz, the DCFS worker who investigated the abuse allegations, testified his investigation began on March 11, 2011, when DCFS received a hotline report that Mr. and Mrs. M. had brought Juan to the hospital with a “bump on the head, old bruises on the left side of the face.” Mr. Cruz went to Mr. and Mrs. M.'s home on March 11, 2011, and first spoke with Mr. M. alone. Mr. M. told Mr. Cruz that at about 12:30 a.m. on March 11, 2011, he lifted Juan from a swing-chair to give him some milk, and he noticed that milk was coming out of Juan's nose. Mr. M. passed Juan to the mother, and at that point Juan became unresponsive. They took him to the hospital.

¶ 11 Mr. Cruz also spoke alone with Mrs. M., who said she would never harm Juan and that she had no explanation for his injuries. Neither parent gave any explanation for Juan's injuries.

¶ 12 After Mr. Cruz spoke with the parents separately, he spoke with them together, along with the children's grandparents, who also lived in the home. Mr. Cruz explained the nature of Juan's injuries, the abuse allegations, and that Kihara would not be able to remain in the home. Kihara was placed in DCFS protective custody that day, and Juan was put in protective custody when he was released from the hospital on March 22, 2011.

¶ 13 Doctor Mary Jones testified she is a general pediatrician and child-abuse specialist at Loyola and had worked there for the last seven months. The trial court admitted Doctor Jones's curriculum vitae. Doctor Jones graduated from the University of Illinois Medical School in 1997 and did her residency in general pediatrics at Advocate Christ Hospital from 1997 to 2000. She is licensed to practice medicine in Illinois and board certified in pediatrics. Doctor Jones is an assistant professor of pediatrics at Loyola and is the physician representative of the child advocacy team at Loyola, where she is responsible for all child-abuse and neglect consultations. She is a fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, and a member of the child-abuse and neglect section there. From October 2009 to February 2011, Doctor Jones worked for Aunt Martha's Youth Services and Healthcare, coordinating medical care for DCFS-involved children, and evaluating children for abuse and neglect. From 2007 to 2009, she worked as a pediatrician at Children's Hospital in Wisconsin. From 2004 to 2007, she worked for Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, supervising residents and coordinating care for medically complex children.

¶ 14 Doctor Jones testified that in her current position as a child-abuse specialist and co-director of the child advocacy team at Loyola, her job is to evaluate children who are suspected victims of abuse and neglect. Over the course of her career, she has consulted on thousands of pediatric cases and on over 100 cases involving suspected abuse or neglect. Doctor Jones has testified 5 to 10 times in court and previously has been qualified as an expert in pediatrics and child-abuse pediatrics.

¶ 15 On voir dire by Mr. M., Doctor Jones could not quantify the number of cases she had consulted on involving only neglect or involving skull fractures, but a month before, she consulted on a case involving a skull fracture and suspected child abuse. Doctor Jones did not know if she has ever been qualified as an expert on “child abuse pediatrics involving skull fractures.” On inquiry from the court, she testified she would be eligible in 2013 to take the board exams for certification in the subspecialty of child-abuse pediatrics.

¶ 16 Over Mr. M.'s objection, the trial court admitted Doctor Jones as an expert in pediatrics and child-abuse pediatrics.

¶ 17 Doctor Jones testified that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Mario L. (In re J.L.), 1–15–2479.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 13, 2016
    ...should be reversed is without merit. In the absence of any other arguments, we affirm the disposition order. See, e.g., In re Juan M., 2012 IL App (1st) 113096, ¶ 69, 360 Ill.Dec. 431, 968 N.E.2d 1184. See also Ill. S.Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Jan. 1, 2016) (providing that “[p]oints not argued......
  • People v. Friend, Court of Appeals No. 09CA2536
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 2014
    ...; Farmland Mut. Ins. Cos. v. Chief Indus., Inc., 170 P.3d 832, 836 (Colo.App.2007) (process of elimination); In re Juan M., 360 Ill.Dec. 431, 968 N.E.2d 1184, 1192 (Ill.App.Ct.2012) (history); In re Savchuk Children, 180 Ohio App.3d 349, 905 N.E.2d 666, 674–75 (2008) (history). By eliminati......
  • People v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 28, 2015
    ...U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987) ) motions and simultaneously dismiss a defendant's appeal. In re Juan M., 2012 IL App (1st) 113096, 360 Ill.Dec. 431, 968 N.E.2d 1184 ; People v. Singleton, 17 Ill.App.3d 924, 308 N.E.2d 821 (1974). I acknowledge that procedurally this case is......
  • People v. Dana S. (In re Tamesha T.)
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 28, 2014
    ...the circuit court's determinations of abuse and neglect unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. See In re Juan M., 2012 IL App (1st) 113096, ¶ 49, 360 Ill.Dec. 431, 968 N.E.2d 1184. A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT