People v. Leola B.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a permanency order entered under section 2 — 28(3) is interlocutory
• explaining that a permanency planning goal established in a child abuse and neglect proceeding under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 cannot be said to be final because it will be reevaluated by the circuit court every six months
• explaining that a permanency planning goal established in a child abuse and neglect proceeding under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 cannot be said to be final because it will be reevaluated by the circuit court every six months
• stating that a judgment is final if it disposes of the rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy or on a separate part of it (citing R.W. Dunteman Co. v. C/G Enterprises, Inc., 181 Ill. 2d 153, 159 (1998))
• noting, once the permanency goal changes to termination of parental rights, DCFS is no longer obligated to provide reunification services
• explaining that a permanency planning goal established in a child abuse and neglect proceeding under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 cannot be said to be final because it will be reevaluated by the circuit court 21 1-07-1865, 1-07-1916 and 1-08-0700 (Consolidated) every six months

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).