M.F. v. H.S.-S.

Appellate courts only review claims properly preserved by specific objections; requesting a particular outcome or expressing a preference is insufficient.

Mother challenges a court order included in the judgment ordering Mother to “comply with the terms of the Action Agreement” prepared by the Department of Human Services. Mother’s counsel objected to the court’s use of the Action Agreement, expressing that she “would prefer that the judgment just have typed in the services, which is common, as opposed to adopting the entire action agreement and everything included therein,” and described this as her “sole objection.” Mother argued that while the court could order her to participate in specific services, it did not have legal authority to require compliance with the entire Action Agreement, stating that this “blurs *** critical distinctions” between DHS’s role (as case planner) and the courts (as neutral arbiter), and raises concerns of “unlawful delegation.” Appellate courts only review claims properly preserved by specific objections; requesting a particular outcome or expressing a preference is insufficient. The Court found that issues not preserved in the trial court would not be considered on appeal. The Court reasoned that preservation requires a party to provide the trial court an explanation of an objection that is specific enough for the court to identify its alleged error and, if warranted, correct it immediately. The Court held that the claim of error was not preserved. Affirmed.