People v. Schoos
| Decision Date | 21 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 58537,58537 |
| Citation | 305 N.E.2d 560,15 Ill.App.3d 964 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Delores SCHOOS, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Patrick T. Murphy, John D. Shullenberger, James M. DeZelar, Chicago, for respondent-appellant.
Bernard Carey, State's Atty. of Cook County, Chicago, for petitioner-appellee; Sheldon Gardner, Chief of the Civil Div., Kevin Sweeney, Fredric B. Weinstein, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.
The Circuit Court of Cook County entered findings of child neglect against the respondent, Delores Schoos, on September 7, 1972, pursuant to Section 2--4 of the Juvenile Court Act(Ill.Rev.Stat., 1971, Ch. 37, § 702--4).The issue presented for review is whether Section 2--4 is unconstitutionally vague and overly broad.
On May 9, 1972, the respondent was informed by police that her 14-year old daughter by a previous marriage, Geraldine Rubo, had been taken into custody as a runaway child.Geraldine told the officers she had been sexually assaulted on two occasions by Leroy Gadson, the man who had been co-habiting with her mother.The police informed representatives of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, and the Department took five of the respondent's six children from her and placed them in foster homes.The respondent had legal custody of her children since her divorce seven years before.
On May 19, 1972, the Department filed petitions in the Juvenile Court charging the respondent with child neglect.On June 9, 1972, counsel for the respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion for declaratory judgment, in which it was alleged that the statute in question was unconstitutionally vague and overly broad.After briefs were filed and arguments heard, the court denied the motion.
On September 7, 1972, a trial was held and there was testimony that Mrs. Schoos had been co-habiting with Leroy Gadson and that she had permitted her two oldest daughters, aged 14 and 15, to smoke marijuana that Gadson had brought into the home.There was no testimony that Gadson had sexually assaulted Geraldine, but Ann Rubo, aged 15, testified Gadson had asked her to have his child.
In its dispositional order of October 26, 1972, the court followed the recommendation of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and placed three of the children with their natural father and permitted two of them to remain with the respondent.
The respondent contends Section 2--4 of the Juvenile Court Act deprives her of due process of law in that it is so vague and overly broad as to lack adequate notice of what parental acts it proscribes, and allows selective and discriminatory enforcement by prosecuting officials and courts, and includes within its coverage parental acts which are constitutionally protected.
Section 2--4 of the Juvenile Court Act(Ill.Rev.Stat., Ch. 37, § 702--4) provides in part:
(1) Those who are neglected include any minor under 18 years of age
(a) who is neglected as to proper or necessary support, education as required by law, or as to medical or other remedial care recognized under State law or other care necessary for his well-being, or who is abandoned by his parents, guardian or custodian; or
(b) whose environment is injurious to his welfare or whose behavior is injurious to his own welfare or that of others.
Mrs. Schoos argues that raising her family without governmental interference is a fundamental right, and the State must show it has a 'compelling interest' in restricting that fundamental right.
Both the United States and Illinois Supreme Courts have held a statute need not be more specific than is possible under the circumstances.In Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223, 71 S.Ct. 703, 95 L.Ed. 886, the court upheld an act allowing the deportation of an alien convicted of a crime involving 'moral turpitude.'The court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trapp, Matter of
...of Metteer, 203 Neb. 515, 279 N.W.2d 374, 378 (1979); Matter of D.T., 89 S.D. 590, 237 N.W.2d 166, 169 (1975); People v. Schoos, 15 Ill.App.3d 964, 305 N.E.2d 560, 562 (1973); In re Neglected Child, 130 Vt. 525, 296 A.2d 250, 254 (1972). The courts in these jurisdictions consider the vaguen......
-
People v. Khan
...89 S.Ct. 867, 21 L.Ed.2d 776; People v. Davis (1982), 106 Ill.App.3d 260, 269, 62 Ill.Dec. 40, 435 N.E.2d 838; People v. Schoos (1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 964, 966-67, 305 N.E.2d 560, appeal dismissed (1974), 417 U.S. 963, 94 S.Ct. 3165, 41 L.Ed.2d 1135.) It is clear that the legislature enacted......
-
Wall, In Interest of
...of assistance." "Child neglect is by its very nature incapable of a precise and detailed definition . . . ." People v. Schoos, 15 Ill.App.3d 964, 967, 305 N.E.2d 560, 562 (1973). See also In re Trapp, 593 S.W.2d 193, 203 (Mo.1980); In re Neglected Child, 130 Vt. 525, 531, 296 A.2d 250, 254 ......
-
People v. Caliendo, 78-1148
...a statute has withstood the test of time, there is a strong presumption, although not conclusive, of its validity. (People v. Schoos (1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 964, 305 N.E.2d 560, app. dismissed (1974), 417 U.S. 963, 94 S.Ct. 3165, 41 L.Ed.2d 1135.) The evils of vague criminal laws were describ......