People v. C.B.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that trial court improperly applied provision of Code of Criminal Procedure to question of whether business records were admissible at parental fitness hearing
• holding that testimony about client service plans by witnesses with only secondhand knowledge of those contents, though inadmissible, was “mere surplusage,” where the plans themselves were entered into evidence and provided sufficient support for the trial court’s findings
• holding that service plans were properly admitted under section 18(4)(a) of the Act where each witness testified that the plans were prepared in the regular course of business and were made contemporaneously with the events they purported to record
• determining that client service plans admitted pursuant to section 2 — 18(4)(a), without the aid of supporting testimony, are sufficient to establish at least one ground of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence
• affirming where respondent suffered no prejudice because “other evidence was sufficient to establish at least one ground of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence”
• stating the trial court may take judicial notice of matters of record in its own proceedings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).