Ct v. Julian S., No. 22JA94 (2025)

Case details
Full caption
Carla Bender 4thdistrict Appellate Ct. v. Julian S.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Illinois (IL)
Court
Illinois Supreme Court
Decided
2025
Disposition
Dismissed
Majority
Knecht (Justice), joined by Doherty (Justice), Dearmond (Justice)
Carla Bender 4thdistrict Appellate Ct. v. Julian S.Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth DistrictAugust 4, 2025, Filed4-25-0301, 4-25-0302 cons. Reporter2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1371 *; 2025 LX 305157Carla Bender 4thDistrict Appellate Court, IL In re A.S., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. (No. 4-25-0300) Julian S., Respondent-Appellant). In re I.P., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. (No. 4-25-0301) Julian S., Respondent-Appellant). In re J.P., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. (No. 4-25-0302) Julian S., Respondent-Appellant). In re S.S., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. (No. 4-24-0298) Julian S, Respondent-Appellant). Notice: Decision text below is the first available text from the court; it has not been editorially reviewed by LexisNexis. Publisher's editorial review, including Headnotes, Case Summary, Shepard's analysis or any amendments will be added in accordance with LexisNexis editorial guidelines.Opinion [*1] Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County No. 22JA93No. 22JA94No. 22JA95No. 24JA1HonorableDwayne A. Gab,Judge Presiding.JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Doherty and DeArmond concurred in the judgment.ORDER 1 Held: The appellate court dismissed the appeals, concluding (1) it was without jurisdiction to address respondent's challenges to the permanency review orders and (2) respondent did not pursue challenges to the other orders from which he appealed. The appellate court further ordered respondent's appellate counsel to pay $1,000 as monetary sanctions to the appellate court clerk and ordered the appellate court clerk to send a copy of the court's decision to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, concluding respondent's appellate counsel violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) by citing multiple cases that did not stand for the propositions of law for which they were cited. 2 Respondent, Julian S., filed pro se notices of appeal from various orders entered inSangamon County case Nos. 24-JA-1, 22-JA-93, 22-JA-94, and 22-JA-95. Thereafter, the trialcourt appointed Attorney William T. Panichi to represent respondent in his appeals. Respondent's [*2] appellate counsel moved to consolidate the appeals, which this court granted, and then filed briefschallenging certain permanency orders entered in case Nos. 22-JA-94 and 22-JA-95. For thereasons that follow, we dismiss the consolidated appeals and order respondent's appellate counselto pay $1,000 as monetary sanctions to the clerk of the Fourth District Appellate Court. We furtherorder the clerk of the Fourth District Appellate Court to send a copy of this decision to the IllinoisAttorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC). 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 The minors involved in these appeals, A.S., I.P., J.P, and S.S., share the same
Page 2 of 4mother. The minors' mother is not, however, involved in these appeals. During the proceedingsbelow, it was determined respondent was the biological father of the minors named in case Nos.22-JA-94 and 22-JA-95 but not the biological father of the minors named in case Nos. 24-JA-1and 22-JA-93. Because respondent is only challenging permanency orders entered in case Nos.22-JA-94 and 22-JA-95, we limit our background to the pertinent facts of those cases. 5 In April 2022, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship, alleging, inpart, I.P. (born [*3] August 2019) (case No. 22-JA-94) and J.P. (born March 2021) (case No. 22-JA-95) were neglected minors in that they were subject to an environment injurious to their welfare (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2022)). In July 2022, the trial court adjudicated I.P. and J.P. neglected and then, following an August 2022 dispositional hearing, made them wards of the court and placed guardianship and custody of them with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). 6 In April 2024, the State filed motions to terminate respondent's parental rights toI.P. and J.P., which it later amended. In the amended motions, the State alleged respondent was an unfit parent in that he (1) failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of I.P. and J.P. from his care within certain nine-month periods following the adjudications of neglected (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2024)) and (2) failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of I.P. and J.P. to him within certain nine-month periods following the adjudications of neglected (id. 1(D)(m)(ii)). The State further alleged it was in the best interests of I.P. and J.P. to terminate respondent's parental rights and appoint DCFS as guardian, [*4] with the power to consent to adoption. 7 In May 2024, the trial court held a permanency review hearing concerning both I.P.and J.P. The record on appeal contains no transcripts, bystander's report, or agreed statement of facts from the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court entered orders changing the permanency goals from return home to substitute care pending court determination. The court then conducted additional permanency review hearings concerning both I.P. and J.P. in September 2024 and March 2025. At the conclusion of those hearings, the court entered orders maintaining the permanency goals of substitute care pending court determination. 8 In March 2025, respondent filed his pro se notices of appeal, and this consolidatedappeal followed. 9 II. ANALYSIS 10 On appeal, respondent challenges the May 2024 permanency orders entered in case Nos. 22-JA-94 and 22-JA-95. Specifically, he presents a variety of arguments as to why he believes the permanency goals for I.P. and J.P. should not have changed from return home to substitute care pending court determination. In response, the State argues, amongst other things, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider respondent's [*5] challenges to the May 2024 permanency orders. 11 To begin with, the May 2024 permanency orders, contrary to respondent's assertionin his opening brief, are not final and appealable orders under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994). See In re K.C., 2024 IL App (1st) 231166, 106 ("[A] permanency order is generally not considered a final order, as it is subject to review and reevaluation at a minimum of every six months."). Indeed, the orders entered neither permanently determined the rights of respondent nor definitively resolved any issues. See id. 107; see also In re Joseph J., 2020 IL App (1st) 190305, 24-25 (finding the permanency order setting the permanency goal at substitute care pending court determination was a nonfinal order). 12 Furthermore, respondent has not complied with the requirements to appeal aninterlocutory order affecting the care and custody of an unemancipated minor under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(5) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Specifically, respondent did not file petitions for leave to appeal and, even if we construed respondent's pro se notices of appeal as said petitions, he did not timely file those petitions. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 306(b)(1) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (petitions requesting leave to appeal must be filed within 14 days of the order from which review is sought). Respondent, in addition, 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1371, *2
Page 3 of 4has not provided, nor do we [*6] find, any grounds by which we could excuse the noncompliance with the rules governing an appeal from an interlocutory order affecting thecare and custody of unemancipated minors. 13 We conclude we lack jurisdiction to consider respondent's challenges to the May2024 permanency orders entered in case Nos. 22-JA-94 and 22-JA-95. Respondent, furthermore, does not pursue challenges to the other orders from which he appealed. Accordingly, we find the appeals consolidated herein should be dismissed. 14 As a final matter, we, in the course of reviewing this consolidated appeal,discovered respondent's appellate counsel, Attorney Panichi, appeared to have cited in the briefs one case that did not exist, "In re C.M., 2015 IL App (3d) 140876," and seven cases, including one nonprecedential order entered pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(b) (eff. Feb. 1, 2023), that existed but did not stand for the propositions of law for which they were cited. As a result, we entered against Attorney Panichi a rule to show cause by way of a written response as to why sanctions should not be entered against him under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) for his conduct. 15 Attorney Panichi filed a written response to the rule to show cause. In his response,Attorney Panichi asserts there [*7] was a "typographical error" with respect to the citation to the apparent nonexistent case, contending it was "mis-cited by name" and should have been "In reMarriage of Perez." He also asserts the citation to the nonprecedential Rule 23 order was "inadvertent" and "is hereby withdrawn." Attorney Panichi otherwise provides, with the exception of the citation to the Rule 23 order, an explanation as to why each of the cases identified by this court were cited. Attorney Panichi concludes his response by "assur[ing] the Court that all future citations will be verified for accuracy and compliance with applicable rules." 16 Prior to the filing of the reply brief in this consolidated appeal, which occurred onJune 23, 2025, Attorney Panichi personally appeared before this court on June 18, 2025, in anunrelated case on a rule to show cause concerning the submission of briefing that contained questionable citations. See In re Baby Boy, 2025 IL App (4th) 241427, 44. Attorney Panichi admitted to using artificial intelligence (AI) to prepare the briefing in that case and to not "thorough[ly]" reviewing the work-product therefrom before submitting it to this court. Id. 48. He "informed the court that he did not intend to use AI going forward." Id. Ultimately, [*8] this court, after a comprehensive discussion of the use of AI and its pitfalls, found Attorney Panichi had violated Rule 375 and, amongst other things, sanctioned him for his conduct. Id. 91-132. 17 Attorney Panichi now, in his response to the rule to show cause in this consolidated appeal, largely maintains the identified citations in the briefing were appropriate. Attorney Panichi's position is untenable. As indicated, he provides, with the exception of the citation to the Rule 23 order, an explanation in response as to why each of the cases identified by this court were cited. A review of the briefing, however, clearly shows the identified cases were not cited for the reasons set forth in the response. For instance, Attorney Panichi cited in the reply brief "In re C.M., 2015 IL App (3d) 140876," which again he contends was simply "mis-cited by name" and should have been "In re Marriage of Perez," for the proposition that "DCFS is obligated to tailor services to accommodate a parent's disabilities." Now, in his response, he asserts that case, "though a divorce case, was cited for the legal proposition recognizing the paramount importance of the child's best interest-a concept that is equally applicable across guardianship, adoption, [*9] divorce, and juvenile proceedings." As another instance, Attorney Panichi cited In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d 476 (2002), in (1) the opening brief for the proposition that "courts must consider whether a parent's disabilities affect their ability to comply with service plans," and (2) the reply brief for the proposition that "a parent's disabilities must be factored into determinations regarding compliance with services." Now, in his response, he asserts that case "was cited for its discussion of parentalunfitness and the State's evidentiary burden in termination proceedings." 18 Even accepting Attorney Panichi's questionable claim he simply miscited a caserather than cited a case that did not exist, our review makes clear he has violated Rule 375 by willfully citing multiple cases that do not stand for the propositions of law for which they are cited. See Baby Boy, 2025 IL App 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1371, *5
Page 4 of 4(4th) 241427, 107-119. We find it particularly concerning this conduct occurred, at least as it relates to the reply brief, after he personally appeared before this court for similar conduct. 19 While Attorney Panichi has not admitted to using AI to prepare the briefing in thiscase, we find that to be a reasonable conclusion based upon our review of the briefing, the response to the rule to show cause, [*10] and Attorney Panichi's past conduct. We emphasize it is not the use of AI itself that is concerning; rather, it is the apparent failure to thoroughly review the work-product therefrom before submitting it to this court. See id. 131. 20 Given his conduct in this consolidated appeal, we find sanctions should be enteredagainst Attorney Panichi under Rule 375 and the ARDC should be informed of Attorney Panichi's conduct. See id. 121-132. 21 III. CONCLUSION 22 For the reasons stated, we dismiss the appeals consolidated herein and order respondent's appellate counsel to pay $1,000 as monetary sanctions to the clerk of the Fourth District Appellate Court. We further order the clerk of the Fourth District Appellate Court to send a copy of this decision to the ARDC. 23 Appeals dismissed.End of Document2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1371, *9
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access