CBA Record May-June 2020

duties without fees, charges, or reward.” The proposed amendment changes the new language to: “Upon mutual agreement between the indigent person and counsel, an indigent person may retain counsel of his or her choosing to represent the indigent person, with leave of court, and that counsel shall perform his or her duties without fees, charges, or reward.” Although this language is preferable to the initial bill language, this language is still problematic. Thus, the DRLS voted to oppose this legis- lation and the Legislative Committee voted 15-0-0 to support that position. HB3969: In November 2019, it came to the attention of the Cook County Public Guardian (CCPG) that children in the care of DCFS were sometimes being shackled for transport from one placement to another. The practice is against DCFS regulation. This bill was introduced as an attempt to limit this shackling practice. The initial bill stated no mechanical restraints could be used except by court order, but that could have been construed to allow medical (“soft”) restraints. After the bill’s sponsor learned of the objec- tions from the CCPG and the ACLU, the sponsor amended the bill so that it allows no “mechanical restraints,” but does allow “soft restraints” (not defined) if ordered by 1) a psychiatrist or 2) a court. The CCPG and the ACLU continue to oppose the bill as amended and are working on a bill (SB2757) that would ensure no restraints are used “for the purpose of punishment or transporter convenience” and would require a mental health professional to ride along with any youth transported if soft restraints are being used. The proposal would also require the Department’s writ- ten approval prior to the use of restraints, similar to HB3939 as amended. SB2757 includes a requirement that a copy of the recommendation for restraints be provided to the child’s court-appointed attorney and guardian at least three days prior to the use of restraints. The DRLS Committee determined that it was important to oppose HB3969 as amended now and the Legisla- tive Committee voted 15-0-0 to support their position.

supported by many agencies, including the Cook County Public Guardian’s Office. The DRLS voted to support this bill and the Legislative Committee voted 19-0-0 to support their position. HB4790: Current law allows that anOrder of Protection can be filed in regard to sexual conduct/penetration cases by a) victims of such acts; b) adults on behalf of a minor child, or on behalf of someone who cannot file because of age, disability, inaccessibil- ity, or health. This legislation broadens the individuals allowed to file an OP to any household member of a victim. This bill is almost certainly well-intentioned, however, before any OP is filed, potential victims should have the opportunity to take the steps necessary to prepare for this potential retaliation. Thus, the DRLS voted to oppose this bill and the Legislative Committee voted 19-0-0 to support that opposition. SB3113: Under the Abused, Neglected or Dependent Minor’s Article of the Juvenile Act, in cases where venue is transferred, this bill mandates that the transferring clerk transfer the file within 5 working days, and that the receiving clerk set the case for status within 15 days. Current law provides no timelines for sending or receiving files. Under current law, it is not unusual for transferring cases to be in “limbo” for up to 5 months or more because either 1) the transferring clerk has not sent the file; or 2) the receiving clerk has not set the case for status. This bill places definitive timeframes on both ends of the process. The DRLS voted to support this legislation and the Legislative Committee voted 18-0-1 to support that position. HB4769 amends the Abused andNeglected Children’s Act. The current statute defines neglected child in part as “a child who is not receiving the proper or necessary support or medical or other remedial care recognized under State law as necessary for a child’s well-being, or other care necessary for his or her well-being.” This bill carves out specific situations which cannot be the sole basis of determining that a child is neglected among them: a) when the child’s parent objects to a recommended vaccine

schedule or b) separation of the child from his/her parent by the medical professional in “non-emergency” situations. The DRLS argued that it is important to weigh the rights of individuals against the rights and safety of society in regard to the vaccination schedule. Regarding a medical professional not separating a child from his/her parent, although this sounds reasonable on its face, consideration must be given to children who have been abused. If an abusive parent is present during a medical exam of such a child, it may be difficult for the medical professional to conduct a thorough exam and/or to obtain information from the child. The DRLS voted to oppose this bill and the Legislative Committee voted 18-0-1 to support. HB5006 amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act and mandates subtraction of any lump sum payments before determining maintenance. The maintenance (alimony) provisions of the IMDMA were extensively amended just a few years ago and those provisions include 1) providing courts with a list of factors they must consider to determine if main- tenance is appropriate; 2) mandating that courts use the same factors to determine if maintenance should/should not be accord- ing to formula; and 3) providing courts with a formula to use what drafters believe would be the majority of maintenance cases. This bill, by singling out one situa- tion that may occur within one factor in the list of many “factors” under the current statute, and then mandating what a court will do in that situation, would likely open the door to other attempts to unravel the fabric of the current maintenance statute. The DRLS voted to oppose this bill and the Legislative Committee voted 18-0-1 to support that opposition. SB3325: The current Code of Civil Proce- dure states “[a] court, in its discretion, may appoint counsel to represent an indigent person, and that counsel shall perform his or her duties without fees, charges, or reward.” This bill adds the following language: “An indigent person may retain counsel of his or her choosing to represent the indigent person, with leave of the court, and that counsel shall perform his or her

CBA RECORD 45

Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator