## Facts

- Michael and Anna Polovchak immigrated to the United States from the Ukrainian SSR in January 1980 with three children, including Walter, age 12.
- After several months, the parents decided to return to the Ukraine; Walter’s older sister chose to stay, and Walter ultimately also sought to remain in the United States.
- Walter left the family home and stayed with relatives; police later brought him to a station, where he stated he wanted to stay in the United States, and he was released to his sister.
- A Chicago police officer filed a juvenile petition alleging Walter was beyond parental control and had run away, seeking adjudication of wardship and protective custody.
- The circuit court appointed a guardian ad litem and, over the parents’ objection, entered an emergency order placing Walter in temporary custody of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
- Walter was adjudicated a “minor in need of supervision” and made a ward of the court; DCFS retained temporary custody with supervised parental visitation.
- The record did not include a finding of parental abuse or physical danger to Walter if returned to his parents.

## Issues

1. Whether the parents’ interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 662 permitted appellate reversal of wardship and temporary-custody orders entered before a dispositional hearing.
2. Whether the juvenile court had statutory authority and a sufficient jurisdictional basis to proceed under the “minor in need of supervision” provisions where the petition alleged runaway conduct and lack of parental control.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court.
- The Court reinstated the circuit court’s orders adjudicating Walter a minor in need of supervision and a ward of the court and continuing temporary custody with DCFS.
- The Court held the appellate court’s interlocutory intervention improperly disrupted ongoing juvenile proceedings before disposition.
- The Court treated the petition’s allegations (runaway/beyond parental control) as sufficient to invoke juvenile-court authority under the governing statute at the temporary-custody stage.

## Legal Principles

- Interlocutory review in juvenile matters under Rule 662 is limited and should not be used to decide the merits of wardship or custody determinations while the dispositional process remains pending.
- Appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for the juvenile court’s continuing supervisory role in fact-dependent determinations concerning a minor’s status and placement.
- Juvenile-court jurisdiction under “minor in need of supervision” provisions may rest on allegations that a minor has run away or is beyond parental control; a showing of parental abuse or immediate physical danger is not a prerequisite to invoke that authority at the temporary-custody stage.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the juvenile court’s wardship and temporary DCFS custody orders, emphasizing that interlocutory appeals in juvenile cases are constrained and should not prematurely displace the juvenile court’s ongoing dispositional responsibility where the statutory basis for jurisdiction is adequately alleged.


In re Polovchak, 97 Ill. 2d 212, 454 N.E.2d 258 (Ill. 1983)