* Background is here if you need it. From the First District Appellate Court with an opinion authored by Justice Joy Cunningham and Justices Hoffman and Delort concurring…

This consolidated appeal of 10 cases arises from the circuit court of Cook County’s orders finding the appellant, Marc D. Smith, who is the director of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), in indirect civil contempt of court. The contempt finding was imposed on Director Smith for not finding appropriate placements for each of the minors in question as ordered by the trial court. This court granted motions to consolidate the cases on appeal because of the similar fact patterns, arguments, and findings by the trial court in each of the cases. Each case is directed against Director Smith in his official capacity. The Office of the Public Guardian of Cook County filed petitions for rules to show cause on behalf of each of the minors in these consolidated cases. The Office of the Public Guardian of Cook County asserted that Director Smith and DCFS did not find appropriate placements for the minors in either a residential treatment center or a specialized foster home as ordered by the trial court. After the issuance of a rule to show cause and a contempt hearing conducted by the trial court, the trial court found Director Smith in indirect civil contempt of court for failing to place each of the minors in appropriate placements as ordered by the court. As a result of the trial court’s contempt finding, Director Smith was initially fined $1000 per day by the trial court. In order to purge the contempt finding and its consequences in each case, the trial court ordered that each minor in the specific case before the court be placed in an appropriate setting.

On appeal, Director Smith argues that the circuit court erred by (1) finding that he should be held in indirect civil contempt in each minor’s case; (2) alternatively finding that the consent decree entered in B.H. v. Smith, 88-C-5599 (N.D. Ill. 1997), an unrelated case, did not bar the court from finding him in contempt; and (3) finding that the Integrated Care Center at Aunt Martha’s (ICC) was not an appropriate placement for the minors in question and therefore did not purge the contempt finding imposed upon him.

For the following reasons, we reverse the judgments of the circuit court of Cook County.

The court then goes over all of the consolidated appeals and the numerous, often failed, efforts made by DCFS employees to place kids in appropriate settings.

* Back to the opinion…

In the cases before us, there are no disputes amongst the parties that DCFS did not comply with the trial court’s orders to place each of the minors in an appropriate residential treatment center or specialized foster home, based on the recommended level of care needed by the minor, by a date certain imposed by the court. Therefore, a primafacie case was made in each case that Director Smith did not comply with the trial court’s orders. The parties dispute, however, whether Director Smith and DCFS were unable, through no fault of their own, to place each minor in an appropriate residential facility or foster home in accordance with the court’s orders. Thus, the parties disagree regarding whether Director Smith met his burden of proving his inability to comply with the court’s placement orders within the given time parameters.

Director Smith claims he made every possible effort to place the minors appropriately in accordance with the court’s orders but circumstances beyond his and DCFS’s control prevented the appropriate placements within the time mandated by the trial court’s orders. For example, he cites the unwillingness of various residential treatment centers to take some of the minors, such as R.A. On the other hand, the GAL and the amicus curiae brief focus their arguments on various methods that were not employed by DCFS to secure appropriate placements for the minors in accordance with the trial court’s orders. They argue vigorously that there were other avenues available to DCFS to secure appropriate placements for the minors, yet DCFS continued to employ ineffective methods that it should have known would fail.

Because we believe R.A.’s situation is illustrative of the main issues and arguments regarding whether DCFS and Director Smith’s actions were willful and disregarded the trial court’s order, we focus our analysis of this issue on R.A.’s particular situation. We note, also, that the trial court specifically found that Director Smith had “ignored’ the trial court’s orders in the majority of the cases in which the court made a contempt finding. […]

As explained, the record shows that while DCFS’s efforts were clearly ineffective, the trial court’s orders were not ignored. Accordingly, the court’s ruling that its orders were ignored, thereby resulting in a finding of indirect civil contempt by Director Smith, was erroneous. […]

Further, it should be noted that R.A., like each of the minors in question, presented with very complicated histories, personal circumstances, and specific treatment plans. It was, therefore, appropriate for the trial court to address Director Smith’s argument regarding whether he was able to comply with the trial court’s orders. The trial court did not entertain any such consideration, however.

While we recognize that the court could reasonably have been frustrated by the pace of Director Smith and DCFS in finding appropriate placements for the minors, the record belies the trial court’s written finding that Director Smith and DCFS “ignored” the court’s orders. On the contrary, the record bespeaks a great deal of activity by DCFS following each court order, notwithstanding that the activity was, at times, seemingly inefficient and clearly ineffective. Notwithstanding, that activity shows that DCFS made efforts to comply with the court’s order to place each minor by a date certain prior to the trial court’s contempt finding. We note that in L.R.’s case, for example, DCFS did follow up with a residential treatment center to offer services to make the placement feasible for L.R. That residential treatment center still declined L.R., so that effort was fruitless. Although the effort failed to amount to L.R. being appropriately placed, it cannot be said that Director Smith “ignored” the trial court’s order in that case as the court found in its contempt ruling. […]

The only activity that the trial court could consider in determining whether there was compliance with its orders was the activity of Director Smith and DCFS after the date of the entry of the court’s orders for appropriate placement of each minor. Therefore, any arguments regarding how Director Smith and DCFS handled the placements of the minors before the placement orders are irrelevant to a finding of contempt in each of these consolidated cases. […]

While it does not appear that DCFS and Director Smith demonstrated a sense of urgency to find appropriate placements for the minors, clearly some efforts were made. Although we do not condone DCFS’s repetitive use of the same ineffective methods to place minors in these cases, we cannot say, in light of the record in each of these cases, that Director Smith ignored the trial court’s orders to find appropriate placement for the minors. Further, the trial court gave no consideration to DCFS’s ability to comply within the specified time imposed the complexity of these cases, the resources available, and the time parameters imposed by the trial court, it would have been appropriate for the court to consider DCFS’s argument regarding its inability to comply. Accordingly, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in entering findings of indirect civil contempt against Director Smith in each of these consolidated cases. […]

Nevertheless, although we acknowledge that DCFS and Director Smith did make some efforts to comply with the placement orders, those efforts fell woefully short of expectations. DCFS is tasked with providing for some of the state’s most vulnerable youth, who present a wide range of significant challenges. The fact that some of the minors were hospitalized beyond medical necessity or left in inappropriate placements for months, or even over a year in some instances, is absolutely unacceptable. While the trial court erred in the methods it employed to coerce Director Smith into action in these cases, it is clear that the trial court was attempting to address a serious, widespread problem. We note that the trial court ultimately achieved its goal of having all the minors at issue placed in appropriate settings. Thus, the ultimate goal was achieved. […]

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgments of the circuit court of Cook County in each of the consolidated cases addressed in this opinion, except in appeal Nos. 1-22-0233 and 1-22-0540, where we vacate the judgments.

Thoughts?

…Adding… From DCFS…

“We are pleased that the Appellate Court found the contempt orders were erroneous. As the Appellate Court described, DCFS has been actively working to secure clinically appropriate placements for these children. Based on the record of DCFS’ actions, the Appellate Court found it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to hold the agency in contempt. DCFS will continue working closely with the trial court to ensure children are placed as quickly as possible in clinically appropriate settings, as we have done with each of the youth cited in the contempt orders. After years of neglect by prior administrations and staffing challenges worsened by a global health pandemic, DCFS has, under the current leadership, continually added therapeutic beds to ensure that children with medically complex conditions and behavioral challenges are placed in the appropriate settings.”

Background:
This administration’s efforts are showing demonstrable results. DCFS has dramatically reduced the number of children who are “beyond medical necessity.” Today, the number of youth who are “beyond medical necessity” is down by more than 80 percent.

Key takeaways from the ruling:

“The court’s ruling that its orders were ignored, thereby resulting in a finding of indirect civil contempt by Director Smith, was erroneous.” (page 42)

“In each case, the trial court held Director Smith in indirect civil contempt while also acknowledging that DCFS actively engaged in trying to find appropriate placements for the minors. At times, the court commented on the activity in which DCFS was engaged in trying to secure appropriate placements for the minors. The trial court, nonetheless found that Director Smith was in contempt for failing to comply with the court’s placement orders, opining that DCFS had ‘ignored’ the trial court’s orders. Such a ruling was inconsistent with the record.” (page 42)

“We find that the trial court abused its discretion in entering findings of indirect civil contempt against Director Smith in each of these consolidated cases.” (page 45)