1

IN THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE ) OF SPRINGFIELD-IN-ILLINOIS, an Illinois ) non-profit corporation, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants ) ) Appeal from the Seventh Judicial vs. ) Circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois ) Hon. John Schmidt, Circuit Judge, STATE OF ILLINOIS, et al., ) Circuit No. 2011-MR-254 ) Defendants-Appellees, ) ) SUSAN TONE PIERCE, et al., ) ) Intervening Defendants-Appellees. )

EMERGENCY MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS FOR A STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT’S ORDER OF AUGUST 18, 2011,

GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, AND VACATING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PRESERVING THE STATUS QUO

ANTE, AND FOR RENEWAL OR REISSUANCE OF SUCH AN INJUNCTION TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO ANTE, PENDENTE LITE

Plaintiffs-appellants, the Catholic Charities entities (non-profit corporations) for three

Illinois Roman Catholic Dioceses, namely, Springfield-in-Illinois, Joliet, and Belleville

(hereinafter referred to collectively as “Catholic Charities”), hereby move, by their undersigned

counsel, and pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rules 305(b), (d), 361, and 366(a), that this

Court grant them the following relief:

(a) Enter an emergency stay of enforcement of the Summary Judgment Order, entered

by the Hon. John Schmidt, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Sangamon

County, Illinois, on August 18, 2011, dismissing all of plaintiffs-appellants’ claims with

prejudice, and vacating the preliminary injunction which had been entered below on July 18,

2

2011, nunc pro tunc as of July 12, 2011. That interlocutory decree had preserved pendente lite

the status quo ante that had governed relations between Catholic Charities and the defendants-

appellees, the Illinois Department of Children & Family Services (“DCFS”) and its Acting

Director, for the last four decades (approximately). Plaintiffs-appellants respectfully submit that

such a stay of enforcement of the Summary Judgment Order should effectively reinstate said

preliminary injunction on appeal to preserve the status quo ante, pending the outcome of this

appeal and any further appeals, as dissolution of that decree had been an integral part of the

Summary Judgment Order.

The primary essential relief that plaintiffs-appellants now seek is to bar and prevent

defendants-appellees, DCFS and its Acting Director, from denying their fundamental rights to

religious liberty (775 ILCS 35/1, et seq.) carrying out their imminently threatened, massive

“transition” to other licensed Illinois child welfare agencies of more than a thousand children

declared wards of the State after having been found to be abandoned, neglected, abused, or

otherwise dependent children whom DCFS had entrusted to the care and oversight of plaintiffs-

appellants after the children had been placed, at defendants’ behest and direction, either with

relatives’ families or with foster families recruited by plaintiffs-appellants. This imminently

threatened mass transfer of “cases” (i.e., children) to other social welfare agencies is fraught with

grave risks of serious negative impacts on the fragile and vulnerable lives of the children

involved, inviting discontinuity, destabilization, and disruption – factors that DCFS’s own

former officials, its inspector general, and leading researchers unanimously cite as serious

impediments to optimal child development and the paramount goal of “permanency” – that is,

either return to their original family or adoption, or at least an ongoing stable placement with a

foster family – for the children involved. This threatened mass transition of cases would also

3

jeopardize plaintiffs-appellants’ ability to secure the fruits of their instant appeal, even if they

were eventually successful in prevailing on the merits of the appeal, as any later effort to

“reverse” the mass transfers would only compound the harm to these children. Denying the

requested stay and allowing this massive transition of children would also wreak irreparable

harm on Catholic Charities, not only in economic terms (as many professional employees would

have to be let go, programs dismantled, and facilities shut down) but, far worse, an immediate

carrying out of these transfers would constitute a grave impairment and outright suppression of

the plaintiffs-appellants’ statutory and constitutional rights to the free exercise of their religious

faith, to due process of law, and to their legitimate entitlements under the applicable Illinois

statutes.

Plaintiffs-appellants therefore urge, respectfully, that said stay should be granted, without

bond, but rather on sole condition that plaintiffs continue to exercise their responsibilities as

licensed child welfare agencies (their current licenses remain in effect over the next two and

three years) as they have done in the ordinary course of operating their charitable religious

activities over the last forty years, during which time they have duly earned from DCFS

“performance based” ratings and evaluations of the highest order as independent social service

contractors. Indeed, plaintiffs-appellants urge that no harm whatsoever would befall either

defendants-appellees, or the children in Illinois’ child welfare system, or the public were a stay

to be granted, preserving the status quo ante, as the children would still be taken care of in

keeping with the high standards that have obtained for the last forty years, while plaintiffs-

appellants’ legal contentions – including that their fundamental rights are being trampled – may

be fully and fairly adjudicated on appeal.

(b) In the alternative, if granting a stay of enforcement of the Circuit Court’s Summary

4

Judgment does not ipso facto entail the reinstatement of the preliminary injunction entered

below, to preserve the status quo ante, then plaintiffs-appellants urge that this Court enter said

injunction on appeal, pendente lite, and without bond but subject to the same conditions cited

supra, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 366(a), in the proper exercise of this Court’s discretion,

and upon plaintiffs-appellants’ showing herein that (i) they not only present “substantial claims”

herein but are indeed likely to prevail upon this appeal, (ii) that they would suffer irreparable

harm, absent the preservation of the status quo ante, and that they have no adequate remedy at

law, (iii) that the balance of the equities decisively favors the plaintiffs-appellants, and (iv) that

an injunction, pendente lite, would be in the public interest and in furtherance of justice.

Plaintiffs-appellants filed a timely post-judgment motion below, as well as an application

for an emergency stay of enforcement of the Summary Judgment Order and reinstatement of the

preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo ante, pending all further proceedings before the

Circuit Court and, if need be, pending this appeal. But on September 26, 2011, the Circuit Court

denied said Application and declined to afford plaintiffs-appellants any part of the relief which

they had requested.

Plaintiffs-appellants are submitting their Suggestions in support of this motion as well as

a Supporting Record, consisting of eight Volumes, comprising not only the common law record

as filed in an earlier appeal in this same litigation, but also all relevant filings subsequent to filing

of the record in the earlier appeal.1

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs-appellants pray that the Court grant them such an emergency

stay of enforcement of the judgment entered below, as described herein; that the Court either

1 Volume I, C-1 to C-240; Volume II, C-241 to C-489; Volume III, C-490 to C-620; Volume IV, C-621 to C-871; Volume V, C-872 to C-1089; Volume VI, C-1090 to C-1300; Volume VII, SR-1 to SR-171; Volume VIII, SR-172 to SR-327.

5

renew or reissue the preliminary injunction decree previously entered by the Trial Court, also as

described herein; and that the Court grant them such other and further relief as may be just and

warranted upon the premises in accordance with law.

__________________________________________ One of the attorneys for the Plaintiffs-Appellants Of Counsel: Thomas Brejcha Paul Benjamin Linton Peter Breen Thomas More Society, A public interest law firm 29 South LaSalle Street – Suite 440 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel. 312-782-1680 Attorney for all Plaintiffs

Bradley E. Huff Richard Wilderson Graham & Graham, Ltd. 1201 South Eighth Street Springfield, IL 62703 Tel. 217-523-4569 Attorneys for Catholic Charities for the Diocese of Springfield-in-Illinois

James C. Byrne Spesia & Ayers 1415 Black Road Joliet, IL 60435 Tel. 815-726-4311 Attorney for Catholic Charities for the Diocese of Joliet, Inc.

David Wells Catherine A. Schroeder Thompson Coburn LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101-1611 Tel. 314-552-7500 Attorneys for Catholic Social Services for Southern Illinois, Diocese of Belleville

IN THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE ) OF SPRINGFIELD-IN-ILLINOIS, an Illinois ) Appeal from the Circuit Court for non-profit corporation, et al., ) the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) Sangamon County

) vs. ) Circuit No.: 2011-MR-254 ) Trial Judge: Hon. John Schmidt STATE OF ILLINOIS, et al., ) Defendants-Appellees, ) )

and ) ) SUSAN TONE PIERCE, et al., ) Intervenors-Appellees. ) ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER Plaintiffs’ emergency motion of plaintiffs-appellants for a stay of enforcement of the trial

court’s order of August 18, 2011, granting summary judgment for defendants-appellees, and

vacating a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo ante, and for renewal or reissuance of

such an injunction to preserve the status quo ante, pendente lite is

ALLOWED; the preliminary injunction shall remain in effect pending the outcome of this appeal and any further appeals DENIED ENTER: DATED: ___________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________