I did not at any time recommend or agree that placement should be made with the grandparents." It is unclear whether Eneks was suggesting that she had never held an opinion contrary to DHS’s position in this case, or that she simply had not previously submitted this recommendation to the court on behalf of DHS as its designated representative, "recommendation" being a term of art in dependency-neglect and other child-welfare cases in which DHS is typically the moving party.
On cross-examination, Eneks was asked, "Were you under the impression from your supervisor and your attorney that you were to leave the courtroom?" Ms. Eneks's attorney objected to this question, citing attorney-client privilege. The circuit court told Ms. Eneks she could answer if she wanted to, and she elected not to do so. The show-cause hearing then concluded. From the bench, the circuit court held both Huffman and Eneks in contempt, ruling as follows:
To intensely engage in an activity to deprive the Court of relevant information in any case involving the welfare and best interest of minor children over which this Court has jurisdiction and which the DCFS has responsibility cannot be handled as a chess game. . . . Ms. Eneks had been in court all that morning. She was instructed to leave by Mr. Huffman prior to this particular hearing and then immediately returned thereafter because he didn't want someone to put her on the spot. All of this strategy was for the ultimate purpose of having this court reach a less than fully informed decision on the placement of young children. . . . There was an overt and conscious act by [Huffman] to deprive the court of relevant material testimony. Ms. Eneks had an opinion either currently or in the past that was opposite to that taken by Mr. Huffman or the department as to placement. To intentionally choose to exclude those relevant facts again deprives this court of relevant information to make the best decision for the children involved.
In its oral ruling, the circuit court made certain statements to the effect that DHS has a "greater responsibility" in child-welfare cases to present all relevant matters to the court, without specific regard to whether any such matter would be consistent with the DHS's
5
