Find Legal Information

MODIFIED ON DENIAL OF REHEARING

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH delivered the opinion of thecourt:

The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services(DCFS) appeals from the order of the circuit court of McLean Countydirecting DCFS to pay for psychological evaluations of delinquentminor Brandon E.H. (born March 4, 1986) and his mother by a non-DCFS-approved psychologist. The issues are whether (1) this actionby the juvenile court was barred by sovereign immunity and (2) thejuvenile court lacked statutory authority to direct reimbursementfrom DCFS. We affirm.

On November 27, 2000, the juvenile court found Brandon adelinquent minor based on his admission to an allegation ofdomestic battery. 720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2000). Pendingthe sentencing hearing scheduled for December 22, 2000, thejuvenile court directed the preparation and filing of apresentencing report and placed Brandon in the temporary custody ofthe detention center. At the conclusion of the November 27, 2000,hearing, the juvenile court ordered that respondent minor and hismother undergo psychological evaluations.

On December 19, 2000, Juvenile Court Services (JCS) fileda social investigation report that included psychological evaluations prepared by Alvin E. House, a licensed clinical psychologist. The social investigation report indicated that the minor was thesubject of a juvenile proceeding in Woodford County (WoodfordCounty case No. 96-JD-19) in which he had been placed in theguardianship of DCFS. On December 19, 2000, the juvenile court inWoodford County had changed the permanency goal for Brandon fromremain home to independent. Following the December 22, 2000,sentencing hearing, Brandon was placed on 24 months' probation,with guardianship to remain with DCFS. On the State's motion, DCFSwas added to this case as a party respondent, and DCFS was directedto reimburse McLean County $700 for the two psychological evaluations.

On January 19, 2001, DCFS filed a motion to vacate theDecember 22, 2000, order of reimbursement. On February 14, 2001,the juvenile court denied the motion. On April 6, 2001, at thedirection of this court, DCFS's late notice of appeal was filed inthe circuit court.

At the February 14, 2001, hearing, Sheri Olson, a socialworker for Catholic Social Services (CSS), testified that shesupervised Brandon's abuse and neglect case. CSS was contracted byDCFS to provide services for Brandon after he had been made a wardof the court in the Woodford County case. At the time Brandon wasdetermined a delinquent in this proceeding, he was a ward of thecourt and under the guardianship of DCFS. Olson appeared at thedelinquency hearing. DCFS was told to prepare a psychologicalevaluation following the November 27, 2000, hearing. The paperworkwas filled out and an appointment was made in anticipation of DCFSapproval. It was scheduled during January 2001 with Dr. MartyTraver, one of 24 psychologists in the central region approved byDCFS. Olson did not make any contractual arrangements or authorizations for House to perform the psychological examinations. Housewas not a psychologist approved by DCFS. Based on standard policyand procedure, Olson could not approve House performing psychological examinations.

DCFS has had a case with this family since 1986 andguardianship of Brandon since September 1998. By guardianship,DCFS takes all the responsibility to ensure the health, safety, andwell-being of the child in its care. Olson understood that thejudge wanted the psychological evaluations completed before thesentencing hearing in order to assist the judge in making adecision in this case. At the November 27, 2000, hearing, thesentencing hearing was scheduled for December 22, 2000. Olson madeTraver's office aware of the time constraints, but January 2001 wasthe best Traver could do. Olson stated that DCFS normally pays forpsychological evaluations of minors it has guardianship of if it isapproved by DCFS and provided by a DCFS-approved provider. According to Olson, there is a standard fee DCFS pays providers itcontracts with, and DCFS did not have a contract with House.

Rebecca Lawson, juvenile probation officer, testifiedconcerning (1) her involvement in the case, (2) her conversationwith Olson in which Olson indicated she would arrange for thepsychological evaluations, and (3) Lawson's arranging appointmentswith House after finding out that the evaluations arranged by Olsonwould not be completed in time for the sentencing hearing.

We initially determine that DCFS has standing to appealand that this court has appellate jurisdiction. See In re O.H.,329 Ill. App. 3d 254, 256-58, 768 N.E.2d 799, 801-02 (2002).

DCFS argues that this action by the juvenile court,ordering DCFS to pay for the services of House, was barred bysovereign immunity. This issue has already been addressed andrejected by the Supreme Court of Illinois. In In re Lawrence M.,172 Ill. 2d 523, 526-27, 670 N.E.2d 710, 712-13 (1996), DCFS arguedthat the juvenile court acted outside its authority in directingDCFS to pay for drug treatment services to parents of minors. Thesupreme court stated:

"A suit against state officials which seeks tocompel them to perform their duty is not heldto be a suit against the state even though theduty to be performed arises under a certainstatute, and the payment of state funds may becompelled." Lawrence M., 172 Ill. 2d at 527,670 N.E.2d at 713.

Therefore, as the court did in Lawrence M., we find the action bythe juvenile court in this case was not barred by sovereignimmunity.

DCFS also challenges the juvenile court's statutoryauthority to order it to pay House's fees. To the extent theanalysis of this issue involves statutory construction, we considerthe question de novo. Boaden v. Department of Law Enforcement, 171Ill. 2d 230, 237, 664 N.E.2d 61, 65 (1996). However, the proprietyof the juvenile court's order is otherwise determined on an abuseof discretion standard. See Lawrence M., 172 Ill. 2d at 537, 670N.E.2d at 717.

"Upon the order of the court, a social investigationreport shall be prepared and delivered to the parties at least 3days prior to the sentencing hearing." 705 ILCS 405/5-701 (West2000). The written social investigation report shall include aninvestigation and report of the minor's mental history andcondition, family situation, and other matters brought to thejuvenile court's attention. 705 ILCS 405/5-701 (West 2000). DCFSdoes not contest the juvenile court's authority to order apsychological evaluation of Brandon and his mother be performed andto direct the preparation and the filing of the resultant report inthe juvenile court. Juvenile courts require current socialinformation about a minor before making important, life-affectingdecisions with regard to the minor, including the possibility ofcommitting the minor to the Department of Corrections. In re D.B.,303 Ill. App. 3d 412, 423, 708 N.E.2d 806, 814 (1999). Section 5-701 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1-1 through 7-1(West 2000)) does not direct who is responsible for the preparationof the report or the payment for the evaluations.

DCFS suggests that, because JCS had the statutoryauthority to arrange for mental health services for the minor (705ILCS 405/6-1(2)(c) (West 2000)), JCS was obligated to pay for theservices instead of DCFS. We disagree.

DCFS is the state agency obligated to provide socialservices to children and their families with the purposes of"remedying, or assisting in the solution of problems which mayresult in, the neglect, abuse, exploitation or delinquency ofchildren." 20 ILCS 505/5(a)(3)(B) (West 2000). Services that DCFSmay make available to meet the needs of children and parentsinclude "assessments." 20 ILCS 505/5(i) (West 2000). In accomplishing that, DCFS shall pay 100% of the reasonable costs ofevaluations pursuant to a written contract between DCFS and theagency providing the services. 20 ILCS 505/5a (West 2000). Inaddition, DCFS has the authority to make agreements with otherdepartments, authorities, and commissions of the state to make andreceive payments for services provided to such bodies. 20 ILCS505/23 (West 2000).

In the case at bar, Brandon was in the guardianship ofDCFS when he was determined to be a delinquent and detained pendingsentencing. The juvenile court directed that a social investigation report, including psychological evaluations of Brandon and hismother, be prepared, and by statute that was required to becompleted three days before the December 22, 2000, sentencinghearing. It was in Brandon's best interests that the sentencinghearing be conducted without further delay. As guardian ofBrandon, DCFS, through its agent Olson from CSS, agreed to arrangefor and pay for the psychological evaluations. DCFS made arrangements with its contractual service provider Traver to conduct theevaluations, but Traver could not provide the services within thetime required by the juvenile court. In spite of the fact thatDCFS has other psychologists and psychiatrists under contract, andeven some in closer proximity to the location of the minor thanTraver, DCFS did nothing to arrange for one of those providers toprovide for the psychological evaluations. Instead, it fell to JCSto arrange for psychological evaluations to be performed in atimely fashion.

JCS does not have the exclusive responsibility to providefor the evaluation services. DCFS also could provide for thoseservices. DCFS volunteered to provide them, and DCFS's failure toabide by its agreement with JCS to provide such services in thiscase forced JCS to make other arrangements.

The DCFS's rules requiring services to be provided bypersons with whom it chooses to contract are not binding on thejuvenile court, and the juvenile court may direct that services beprovided without reference to DCFS rules. In re D.D., 312 Ill.App. 3d 806, 810-11, 728 N.E.2d 119, 121-22 (2000). In proceedingsunder the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, the juvenile court has theauthority to direct the course of the proceedings in order topromptly gather information bearing on the current condition andfuture welfare of the persons subject to the Act. 705 ILCS 405/1-2(2) (West 2000); see In re D.S., 198 Ill. 2d 309, 320, 763 N.E.2d251, 257 (2001). Under the facts of this case, the juvenile courtdid not exceed its statutory authority or commit an abuse ofdiscretion.

The order of the circuit court of McLean County directingDCFS to pay $700 as fees for House's psychological evaluations ofBrandon and his mother is affirmed.

Affirmed.

COOK and APPLETON, JJ., concur.