Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > In re Estate of Jackson

In re Estate of Jackson

Case Date: 10/15/2002
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-01-1438 Rel

FIRST DIVISION
October 15, 2002



No. 1-01-1438


IN RE ESTATE OF WILLIAM V. JACKSON III, 

                      Deceased

(Louis G. Apostol, Cook County Public
Adm'r, 

                      Petitioner-Appellee, 

          v.

William V. Jackson, Jr., and Cynthia R.
Hill, 

                      Respondents-Appellants).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 		Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Cook County









Honorable
Frank M. Siracusa,
Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE McNULTY delivered the opinion of the court:

To resolve this case we must interpret section 2-6.5 of theProbate Act of 1975 (755 ILCS 5/2-6.5 (West 1998)), which permitsthe probate court to reduce or eliminate a parent's share in theestate of his or her child in certain circumstances. TheDepartment of Children and Family Services (DCFS) took WilliamJackson III (William III) from the custody of his parents,William Jackson, Jr. (Jackson), and Cynthia Hill, in 1996. William III died in 1998. His estate's sole asset is a potentialcause of action for wrongful death. The office of the CookCounty public guardian (Guardian) petitioned for a declarationthat Jackson and Hill had no right to receive any portion of theestate. After an evidentiary hearing the trial court granted thejudgment the Guardian sought. Jackson and Hill appeal.

We hold that the statute requires the court to address thefactors specified in the statute before reducing or eliminating aparent's share in the child's estate. Because the record heredoes not show that the trial court considered those factors wereverse the judgment and remand the case in part for furtherproceedings.

Hill gave birth to William III on June 5, 1996. In the lasttwo weeks of July 1996, domestic disputes between Jackson andHill led to six separate visits by police. None of the callsinvolved child abuse. Again in the early morning of July 31,1996, a police officer came to the apartment in response to acall concerning a domestic dispute. The officer found Jackson'sarm cut, Hill's face bruised, and William III in a messy bedroomwearing only a diaper. William III appeared healthy and showedno sign of injury. The officer arrested both Hill and Jacksonand placed William III in the care of a neighbor. Policereleased Hill and Jackson later that morning and never chargedthem with any offense based on that or any other domesticincident. Neither Hill nor Jackson sought or received medicalcare for his or her injuries.

Vivian Church, from DCFS, came to the apartment thatafternoon. Hill told Church that she and Jackson had beendrinking before the fight. Both Hill and Jackson still smelledof alcohol when Church arrived. Jackson admitted that he had achronic problem with alcohol. Church took William III intocustody. Although she noted that the apartment was messy, shefound that the condition did not warrant removal of the childfrom the parents' custody. Hospital records show that WilliamIII was then a healthy baby of just over 10 pounds, which put himin the twenty-fifth percentile for weight for children his age. He also fell into the twenty-fifth percentile for height and headsize.

DCFS petitioned for custody of William III based on theparents' fights and alcohol abuse. Church did not tell Hill andJackson where DCFS placed William III until the first courthearing on the petition for temporary custody. At the hearingthe parties stipulated that William III was not in the room withHill and Jackson during the fight, but he was in the apartmentwith them.

The court adjudged William III neglected. The court laterentered a disposition order making William III a ward of thecourt because both parents were "unable for some reason otherthan financial circumstances alone to care for, protect, train,or discipline the minor." Jackson's sister, Thelma Harmon,volunteered to take care of William III. DCFS placed William IIIin Harmon's care in December 1996.

Harmon's income decreased and she asked DCFS for financialassistance. DCFS did not help. At a hearing in May 1998 thecourt found that DCFS had not made reasonable efforts to complywith its own goals for the child because DCFS had not paid Harmonfor the foster care.

In August 1998 a DCFS employee took William III to ahospital for developmental testing. The evaluator observed thatWilliam III "had dropped [from] 25% for wt, ht, [to] below 5%."At 26 months of age, William III weighed only 23