In re C.S. , 2023 IL App (5th) 230128-U ( 2023 )

2023 IL App (5th) 230128-UNOTICE
NOTICE
Decision filed 07/18/23. The
This order was filed under
text of this decision may be NOS. 5-23-0128, 5-23-0129, 5-23-0130 cons.
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
changed or corrected prior to
not precedent except in the
the filing of a Petition for IN THE limited circumstances allowed
Rehearing or the disposition of
under Rule 23(e)(1).
the same.
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
In re C.S., L.S., and A.S., Minors ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) Vermilion County.
)
Petitioner-Appellee, )
)
v. ) Nos. 22-JA-84, 22-JA-85,
) 22-JA-86
)
Candice S., ) Honorable
) Robert E. McIntire,
Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE BARBERIS delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Boie and Justice Vaughan concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The circuit court’s dispositional order finding the minor children neglected was not
against the manifest weight of the evidence. Moreover, the court did not err by
placing guardianship with Christine and James K.
¶2 This appeal arises from the dispositional order of the circuit court of Vermilion County
finding C.S. (22-JA-84), L.S. (22-JA-85), and A.S. (22-JA-86) neglected. 1 Respondent-mother
filed a timely notice of appeal in each case, and the cases were consolidated for our review. We
affirm.
1
The records in each consolidated case are nearly identical. For purposes of this order, any factual
information derives from the record in 22-JA-84.
1
¶3 I. Background
¶4 We limit our recitation of the facts to those necessary for an adequate understanding of the
case and resolution of the issue presented before us on appeal. We will recite additional facts in
the analysis section as needed to address respondent-mother’s specific arguments.
¶5 On July 8, 2022, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship regarding all three
children. The petition alleged four counts of neglect. Count I alleged neglect pursuant to section
2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)), in that
the minors’ environment was injurious to their welfare due to respondent-mother’s substance
abuse. Count II alleged the same due to father’s substance abuse. 2 Count III alleged neglect
pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Act, in that the environment was injurious to the minors’
welfare where the parents engaged in domestic violence in front of the minors, placing them in
physical and emotional danger of harm. The final count alleged neglect pursuant to section 2-
3(1)(a) of the Act (id. § 2-3(1)(a)), in that the parents failed to provide the proper and necessary
support, education, or other remedial care required for the minors’ welfare.
¶6 On July 8, 2022, the circuit court held a shelter care hearing. The State presented the
testimony of Jamie Russell, a caseworker with the Illinois Department of Children and Family
Services (DCFS). Russell testified that he was the investigator appointed to the case, and an initial
report regarding the minor children came in on June 2, 2022. According to the report, a domestic
altercation occurred between respondent-mother and the father in front of the children, where
allegedly father punched respondent-mother in the nose while riding in a vehicle.
¶7 A second report came on June 3, 2022. The second report raised concerns about the
children lacking housing and food, and also indicated that the family was kicked out of a hotel
2
Father is not a party to the instant appeal. Father pursued his own appeal in No. 5-23-0131.
2
with nowhere to go. According to the report, the children “were filthy” and lacking hygiene. The
investigator on call, Meredith Brooks, facilitated the family to stay in a hotel and move to a shelter.
However, mother left the hotel and stopped responding to investigators.
¶8 A third and final report came on June 30, 2022. According to the report, a second domestic
violence incident occurred between respondent-mother and father, wherein father battered
respondent-mother and was arrested. The children were present during the altercation. Russell met
with respondent-mother, who confirmed there was a domestic dispute. Russell testified that there
were concerns regarding methamphetamine use by both respondent-mother and father. Russell
asked respondent-mother to complete a drug drop on June 2, 2022, which respondent-mother
missed.
¶9 Russell testified that he consulted with the state’s attorney’s office, and they created a plan
to allow the children to return to their former foster family, James and Christine K., in
Veedersburg, Indiana. Respondent-mother was not amenable to assistance from investigators.
Russell took protective custody of the children on July 6, 2022. Russell noted that when protective
custody was taken, C.S. was “clean,” but “the other two children were very dirty.” Respondent-
mother was combative with investigators and claimed that Russell “took the children illegally.”
C.S. advised Russell that there were domestic disputes wherein father hit respondent-mother. C.S.
advised Russell that “his dad made money by making chemicals out at the home of Tara Ray.”
Russell testified that respondent-mother had “very little” clothing for the children. A.S. did not
have pants. Russell testified that the parents had previous DCFS involvement, wherein the children
were previously in protective custody. Both respondent-mother and father had prior arrests for
methamphetamine use.
3
¶ 10 Russell additionally testified that, at the time of the shelter care hearing, the children were
placed in three separate homes. The preference of DCFS was to keep the children together in their
prior foster placement in Indiana. Russell requested that temporary custody of all three children be
granted to the K. family in Indiana, through an interstate compact, 3 who cared for them during
their prior protective care.
¶ 11 The circuit court granted protective custody and placed temporary custody with the K.
family. The court noted that, although it was an “unusual situation” placing the children outside of
the state, it was “important” to keep the children together and to provide “continuity with people
that they have known from the past.”
¶ 12 On August 30, 2022, DCFS filed a family service plan with the circuit court. The service
plan indicated that the children were previously in care in Vermilion County (2018-JA-31-33).
The service plan indicated that respondent-mother remained with father, despite the allegations of
domestic abuse. Respondent-mother had a substantial criminal history including
methamphetamine delivery, possession of methamphetamine, assault, and dangerous drugs. The
service plan recommended a goal of adoption, where the children resided with a family that was
willing to provide permanency for them.
¶ 13 On November 10, 2022, the circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing. Roosevelt Fuentes,
a probation officer for Vermilion County, testified. Fuentes facilitated drug drops for respondent-
mother and father. On September 2, 2022, Fuentes was asked to do a drug drop for father. As
Fuentes walked father to do the drop, father took a “left down the stairs and ended up leaving the
courthouse.” Tara Woodard, another probation officer for Vermilion County, was with Fuentes
3
“Interstate compact” refers to the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children Act, which
facilitates cooperation between states for the interstate placement of children. 45 ILCS 15/0.01 et seq. (West
2020).
4
during this incident. Woodward facilitated a drug drop for respondent-mother. Respondent-mother
also left the courthouse and ignored Woodard and Fuentes. Neither parent complied with a drug
drop on September 2, 2022, as ordered by the court.
¶ 14 Kaitlyn Swisher, an officer with the Danville Police Department, testified. On June 1, 2022,
Swisher was dispatched to the Candle Lite Motel in Danville for a domestic disturbance. Upon
arrival, Swisher observed respondent-mother, who had swelling and bruising to her nose, with
three juveniles. Respondent-mother told Swisher that she could not find father, so she went looking
for him. Respondent-mother found father and another woman in father’s truck south of Rossville.
Respondent-mother’s vehicle subsequently got stuck, with all three children inside. Respondent-
mother called father to come pick them up. Father came to pick them up, and respondent-mother
and father began to argue. Respondent-mother acknowledged that she “hit” father “in the right side
of his face” and father then “back handed her into the nose, causing the bruising and swelling.”
The three children were in the vehicle at that time. Swisher observed respondent-mother’s injuries.
¶ 15 Scott Showers, an officer with the Danville Police Department, testified. Showers testified
that on June 30, 2022, he was dispatched to the Candle Lite Motel for a domestic dispute. Showers
went to the motel room door, and respondent-mother opened the door. Father was present in the
room wearing only a towel. Respondent-mother advised Showers that she and father had a verbal
argument which turned physical. Respondent-mother advised Showers that father “hit her multiple
times with open and closed hands, and then also spit on her.” Showers observed spit in respondent-
mother’s hair and visible marks on her face. Showers testified that all three children were present
in the motel room. Showers placed father under arrest for domestic battery. Showers contacted
DCFS.
5
¶ 16 Russell also testified consistently with his shelter care hearing testimony. Meredith Brooks
testified. Brooks was the investigator on the second report on June 3, 2022. Brooks received a
hotline call that respondent-mother and the children were kicked out of their motel, had nowhere
to go, and the children were “filthy,” with matted hair, and smelled of urine. The hotline caller
advised that respondent-mother was “yelling about not having any money, and that they were
hungry.” Brooks contacted respondent-mother the next day. Brooks observed that respondent-
mother had a black eye. Brooks attempted with no luck to secure respondent-mother and the
children a space in a shelter. Brooks assisted respondent-mother in staying at a hotel for the
weekend.
¶ 17 Brooks checked on respondent-mother the next day and took pizza for the children.
Respondent-mother advised Brooks that she and father “reconciled” and he “stopped by,” “gave
her back her phone,” and “put some money on her cash app.” Brooks advised respondent-mother
that she still needed to come talk with her on Monday. Following the visit, respondent-mother
dropped contact with Brooks altogether.
¶ 18 Following argument from the parties, the circuit court found all three children neglected
“in an environment injurious to their welfare.” The court based this finding upon the “multiple
instances of domestic violence between the parents in the presence of the children, as well as the
failure to provide necessary support, or other remedial care for the children’s welfare.” Thus, the
court found the State proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, counts III and IV of the petitions
for each child. The court did, however, find the State failed to prove counts I and II.
¶ 19 Following the hearing, respondent-mother and father submitted drug drops. Respondent-
mother’s results were negative.
6
¶ 20 On December 30, 2022, DCFS filed a dispositional hearing report with the circuit court.
The report noted that respondent-mother was not cooperative with DCFS. The report indicated that
respondent-mother responded to phone calls and text messages but failed to complete all drug
drops consistently. Respondent-mother failed to maintain stable housing and reported herself
homeless. Respondent-mother refused to go to a shelter. Respondent-mother did not have
employment. In addition, respondent-mother failed drug drops on October 4, 2022, October 7,
2022, November 18, 2022 (positive for amphetamines/methamphetamine and THC), November
29, 2022, December 14, 2022, and December 21, 2022. Respondent-mother failed to attend her
scheduled assessment for substance abuse. Similarly, respondent-mother failed to appear for her
domestic violence assessment.
¶ 21 The report also noted numerous police reports for domestic disturbances that occurred on
October 4, 2021, October 18, 2021, October 24, 2021, February 26, 2021, June 1, 2021, and March
30, 2021. The report additionally noted that both parents had an extensive prior indicated history
with the children, who previously were in care.
¶ 22 On February 22, 2023, DCFS filed a dispositional hearing report with the circuit court. The
report indicated that both parents took steps to initiate the partner abuse intervention program.
However, neither parent participated in substance abuse programming nor random drug drops,
specifically failing to attend six requests to complete drops. Neither parent met with their
caseworker on a weekly basis as required. The report indicated that respondent-mother and father
were homeless and living in a motel on DCFS funds.
¶ 23 The service plan filed with the dispositional hearing report indicated that respondent-
mother was unsatisfactory for failing to enroll in substance abuse treatment programs and failing
to complete random drug drops. The service plan marked respondent-mother unsatisfactory for
7
failing to keep appointments and attending scheduled assessments or meetings with caseworkers.
Respondent-mother was also unsatisfactory for acquiring housing or employment, where
respondent-mother indicated that she was homeless.
¶ 24 On February 23, 2023, the circuit court held a dispositional hearing. Christine K., the
temporary custodian of the children, testified. Christine testified that she and her husband lived in
Indiana. If DCFS was awarded guardianship, the children would be removed from her home in
Indiana to be placed in Illinois. Christine testified that the children have a long and documented
history of instability, and she provides them with a stable home environment. Christine constituted
a family placement, where the father of the children is her nephew. Christine testified that the
children received therapy services to work through their trauma and received appropriate mental
health services in her care. Christine testified that the children were in her care from June or July
of 2019 until May of 2020. At that time, an interstate compact was done to place the children with
her. Christine also testified that she and her husband were financially able to take care of the
children without a DCFS subsidy. Both Christine and her husband had stable employment.
¶ 25 Moreover, Christine testified that C.S. attended school and did well “grade-wise.” C.S.,
however, exhibited emotional outbursts where “he would hit himself in the face, on his body,
scratch, [and] scream.” His care team, including Christine, therapists, and teachers, “are working
with that.” A.S. advised Christine that “mommy would hit her.” A.S. attended therapy for
behaviors such as hitting herself. L.S. attended play-based therapy.
¶ 26 Next, James K. testified. James is Christine’s husband. James testified that his wife’s
testimony was accurate, and that he was willing and able to serve as guardian for the children.
¶ 27 On March 2, 2023, the circuit court continued the dispositional hearing. Father testified
that he “was denied visitation” with the children. He testified that he had no contact with the
8
children since they went into care. Father testified that he was willing to complete services in order
to “get them back.” Father testified that he did not have a residence and “bounced around.” Father
testified that there was never physical violence in the home. Father suggested that he had family
in Illinois that would be suitable foster parents for the children. He testified that he had siblings
that “would help out.”
¶ 28 After considering the evidence, the circuit court found both parents unfit and unable to care
for the children. Considering the best interests of the children, the court found that it was “not in
the best interest of these children” to “take them away from the placement that they’ve been in for
frankly a pretty decent part of their lives, quite possibly have them split up.” The court noted that
if DCFS took custody of the children, there was “a possibility, though that’s not crucial to my
decision, but there is a possibility that [C.S.] would have to go to a specialized foster home, and
the other two to a regular one.” The court noted that such a result might not be a “good path to
permanency” for the children. The court noted that the children were “in a home that is able to
address their needs, where they, I think, feel safe and stable.” Thus, the court determined that it
would be “immensely disruptive for these children in this particular instance to remove them from
their current temporary guardians” and place them with DCFS. As such, the court placed all three
children with the foster parents, Christine and James K.
¶ 29 The circuit court noted that it did not terminate parental rights. Although the parents lost
custody and guardianship, they “still have residual parental rights.” The court encouraged the
parents to seek services for substance abuse and domestic violence.
¶ 30 The same day, the circuit court entered a dispositional order. Specifically, the court noted
that it was not consistent with the health, welfare, and safety of the children nor in their best
interests to be made minor wards of the court. The court found both mother and father unfit and
9
unable to care for the children. Specifically, to respondent-mother, the court found “her need to
evidence sobriety, complete substance abuse treatment, domestic violence education, parenting
education, and establish and maintain a safe and appropriate home for her children” as reasoning
why placement with her was contrary to the health, safety, and best interests of the children. As to
father, the court found him unfit, unable, and unwilling, where father demonstrated a “need to
evidence sobriety, complete substance abuse treatment, domestic violence education, parenting
education, and establish and maintain a safe and appropriate home for the children.” The court
placed custody and guardianship with James and Christine K.
¶ 31 The circuit court entered an order to close the proceedings, where legal custody and
guardianship was granted to Christine and James K., who lived in Indiana.
¶ 32 This appeal followed.
¶ 33 II. Analysis
¶ 34 Respondent-mother argues that the circuit court erred by finding the children neglected and
granting their permanent custody and guardianship to James and Christine K. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
¶ 35 A. Finding of Neglect
¶ 36 First, respondent-mother argues that the circuit court erred by finding C.S., L.S., and A.S.
neglected children.4 For the reasons that follow, we disagree.
¶ 37 The Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2020)) establishes a two-step process for
determining whether a child should be removed from his or her parents’ custody and made a ward
4
We note that the notice of appeal in this case indicated respondent-mother was appealing only the
dispositional order. However, an adjudicatory order is generally not considered a final appealable order and
is a step in the procedural progression leading the to the dispositional order. In re Ay. D., 2020 IL App (3d)
200056, ¶ 37. Accordingly, the dispositional order—which is a final judgment appealable as of right—is
the proper vehicle to appeal a finding of abuse or neglect. Id.10
of the court. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 13. First, the trial court holds an adjudicatory
hearing to determine whether the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent. In re Arthur H., 212
Ill. 2d 441, 462 (2004); 705 ILCS 405/2-21(1) (West 2020). If the court determines that the minor
is abused, neglected, or dependent, it holds a dispositional hearing to determine whether it is in the
best interests of the minor and the public for the minor to become a ward of the court. In re D.A.,
2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 13; 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2) (West 2020).
¶ 38 Section 2-3(1)(b) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)) defines a neglected
minor to include any minor under 18 years of age whose environment is injurious to his or her
welfare. Neglect based on an “injurious environment” is not readily susceptible to definition. In re
J.P., 331 Ill. App. 3d 220, 234 (2002). However, neglect has generally been described as the failure
to exercise the care that circumstances justly demand and encompasses willful and unintentional
disregard of parental duty. Id. at 235. Cases involving the adjudication of neglect and wardship are
sui generis, and each case must ultimately be decided on the basis of its own particular facts. In re
Edricka C., 276 Ill. App. 3d 18, 25 (1995).
¶ 39 The State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the child is
abused, neglected, or dependent. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 13. A preponderance of
the evidence is the amount of evidence that leads a trier of fact to find that the fact at issue is more
probable than not. In re J.P., 331 Ill. App. 3d at 234. A trial court’s determination of neglect based
on an injurious environment will not be reversed unless it is against the manifest weight of the
evidence. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 14. A finding is against the manifest weight of
the evidence if opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the determination is unreasonable,
arbitrary, or not based on the presented evidence. Id.11
¶ 40 In the case before us, the circuit court considered significant evidence to support its finding
of neglect. At the November 10, 2022, adjudicatory hearing, Swisher, an officer with the Danville
Police Department, testified. Swisher was dispatched to the Candle Lite Motel in Danville for a
domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, Swisher observed respondent-mother, who had swelling and
bruising to her nose, with three juveniles. Respondent-mother advised Swisher that she and father
had a domestic dispute, and the three children were in the vehicle at that time. Swisher observed
respondent-mother’s injuries.
¶ 41 Additionally, Showers, an officer with the Danville Police Department, testified. Showers
testified that on June 30, 2022, he was dispatched to the Candle Lite Motel for a domestic dispute.
Showers went to the motel room door, and respondent-mother opened the door. Father was present
in the room wearing only a towel. Respondent-mother advised Showers that she and father had a
verbal argument which turned physical. Respondent-mother advised Showers that father “hit her
multiple times with open and closed hands, and then also spit on her.” Showers observed spit in
respondent-mother’s hair and visible marks on her face. Showers testified that all three children
were present in the motel room. Showers placed father under arrest for domestic battery. Showers
contacted DCFS.
¶ 42 The circuit court heard testimony from Brooks, the investigator on the second report on
June 3, 2022. Brooks received a hotline call that respondent-mother and the children were kicked
out of their motel, had nowhere to go, and the children were “filthy,” with matted hair, and smelled
of urine. The hotline caller advised that respondent-mother was “yelling about not having any
money, and that they were hungry.” Brooks contacted respondent-mother the next day. Brooks
observed that respondent-mother had a black eye. Brooks attempted with no luck to secure
12
respondent-mother and the children a space in a shelter. Brooks assisted respondent-mother in
staying at a hotel for the weekend.
¶ 43 Brooks checked on respondent-mother the next day and took pizza for the children.
Respondent-mother advised Brooks that she and father “reconciled” and he “stopped by,” “gave
her back her phone,” and “put some money on her cash app.” Brooks advised respondent-mother
that she still needed to come talk with her on Monday. Following the visit, respondent-mother
dropped contact with Brooks altogether.
¶ 44 Following argument from the parties, the circuit court found all three children neglected
“in an environment injurious to their welfare.” The court based this finding upon the “multiple
instances of domestic violence between the parents in the presence of the children, as well as the
failure to provide necessary support, or other remedial care for the children’s welfare.” Thus, the
court found the State proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, counts III and IV of the petitions
for each child. Considering the totality of this evidence, we find that the circuit court’s finding of
neglect based on an injurious environment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
As such, we find no error with the circuit court’s order adjudicating the minors neglected.
¶ 45 B. Unfitness
¶ 46 Next, although respondent-mother does not explicitly raise an argument regarding the
circuit court’s dispositional “unfit” finding, we construe her brief to raise the issue and consider
whether the finding of dispositional “unfit” was supported by the record.
¶ 47 The proceedings in this matter are governed by the Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West
2020)), which provides a systematic framework for determining when a minor child may be
removed from his or her parents and made a ward of the State. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 18.
First, the circuit court must make a finding of abuse, neglect, or dependence regarding the child.
13
705 ILCS 405/2-21 (West 2020). If the circuit court finds a child is neglected, then the circuit court
conducts a dispositional hearing at which the “court shall determine whether it is consistent with
the health, safety and best interests of the minor and the public that he be made a ward of the
court.” Id. § 2-21(2). When a minor is made a ward of the court, the circuit court must also
determine the proper disposition that best serves the health, safety, and interest of the minor child
and the public. Id. § 2-22. A proper disposition may include the removal of the minor child from
the custody of his or her parent if the court determines that the parent is unfit, unable, or unwilling,
for some reason other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train, or discipline
the minor child, and that the health, safety, and best interest of the minor would be jeopardized if
the minor child remained in the custody of his or her parent. Id. §§ 2-23, 2-27.
¶ 48 “[A] proceeding seeking to divest a parent of custody and guardianship following a finding
of abuse or neglect and a proceeding seeking the termination of parental rights *** are different,
and the stringency of the requisite ‘unfitness’ as it relates to each proceeding is also different.”
In re A.R., 2022 IL App (3d) 210346, ¶ 17. Where the State is not seeking to terminate the parental
rights of a respondent, “the State need only prove respondent unfit under the ordinary meaning of
that term.” Id.¶ 49 A circuit court’s finding at a dispositional hearing will only be reversed if the findings of
fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence or the circuit court committed an abuse of
discretion by selecting an inappropriate dispositional order. In re J.W., 386 Ill. App. 3d 847, 856
(2008). A circuit court’s finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite
conclusion is clearly evident or where its finding is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the
evidence presented. In re Al. S., 2017 IL App (4th) 160737, ¶ 41. Further, wide discretion is vested
in the circuit court judge to an even greater degree in child custody cases than any ordinary appeal
14
to which the familiar manifest weight principle is applied. In re Martin, 31 Ill. App. 3d 288, 293
(1975).
¶ 50 In the case before us, the circuit court considered evidence which demonstrated that
respondent-mother remained in contact with father, despite the allegations of domestic abuse.
Respondent-mother had a substantial criminal history, and the children were previously in care.
Respondent-mother was not cooperative with DCFS, specifically where she failed to complete all
drug drops consistently, failed to maintain stable housing, and reported herself homeless.
Respondent-mother refused to go to a shelter. Respondent-mother did not have employment.
Respondent-mother failed to attend her scheduled assessment for substance abuse. Similarly,
respondent-mother failed to appear for her domestic violence assessment. The circuit court heard
evidence of numerous police reports for domestic disturbances. This evidence was more than
sufficient for the circuit court to find respondent-mother unfit.
¶ 51 Therefore, the circuit court’s finding that respondent-mother was unable and unfit to care
for the three minor children was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 52 C. Guardianship Order
¶ 53 Finally, respondent-mother argues that the circuit court erred by granting custody and
guardianship to James and Christine K. Specifically, respondent-mother contends that custody and
guardianship should have been placed with DCFS. The State responds that it is in the children’s
best interest that they stay in the custody of James and Christine K. For the reasons that follow,
we agree with the State.
¶ 54 “This court must exercise its judgment and either approve, and therefore allow, the
placement or disapprove, and therefore disallow, the placement” of the children with an out-of-
state family. In re Q.P., 2022 IL App (1st) 220354, ¶ 20. “This exercise of judgment must give
15
precedence to the child’s best interest ***.” Id. When determining the child’s best interests, the
circuit court is required to consider, in the context of the child’s age and developmental needs, the
following:
“(a) the physical safety and welfare of the child, including food, shelter,
health, and clothing;
(b) the development of the child’s identity;
(c) the child’s background and ties, including familial, cultural, and
religious;
(d) the child’s sense of attachments, including:
(i) where the child actually feels love, attachment, and a sense of
being valued (as opposed to where adults believe the child should feel such
love, attachment, and a sense of being valued);
(ii) the child’s sense of security;
(iii) the child’s sense of familiarity;
(iv) continuity of affection for the child;
(v) the least disruptive placement alternative for the child;
(e) the child’s wishes and long-term goals;
(f) the child’s community ties, including church, school, and friends;
(g) the child’s need for permanence which includes the child’s need for
stability and continuity of relationships with parent figures and with siblings and
other relatives;
(h) the uniqueness of every family and child;
(i) the risks attendant to entering and being in substitute care; and
16
(j) the preferences of the persons available to care for the child.” 705 ILCS
405/1-3(4.05) (West 2020).
¶ 55 “While all of the above-cited factors must be considered, no factor is dispositive.” In re
Austin W., 214 Ill. 2d 31, 50 (2005). Other important factors include “ ‘the nature and length of
the child’s relationship with the present caretaker’ and the effect that a change of placement would
have upon the emotional and psychological well-being of the child.” Id. (quoting In re Violetta B.,
210 Ill. App. 3d 521, 534 (1991)). The circuit court is not required to articulate any specific
rationale for its decision, and on review we may affirm the circuit court’s decision without relying
on any basis used by the circuit court. In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 883, 893 (2004).
¶ 56 As an initial matter, we note that respondent-mother contends that there “were relative
placement options in Illinois that would provide a familiar home for the children.” At the
dispositional hearing, father testified that he had “several” relatives in Illinois. Specifically, father
testified as follows:
“I believe any my siblings would—if they were approached within the idea that would
work between all of them, I believe my siblings would help out. My sister, Miranda, in
particular, has helped before. I don’t think that she—not on a permanent basis. She would
play her role as a family member and step up where needed. So long as I’m doing what I
need to do to be moving in the right direction, yes, I believe my family would assist in, you
know, providing care for the kids.”
Father continued:
“They were with my sister, Miranda, but I also believe even my brothers, I believe my
brother, Joe, and my brother, Allen, would also help out with the boys.”
¶ 57 The State notes that father’s testimony regarding family placement in Illinois was “filled
with qualifiers and contingencies.” We agree.
¶ 58 Here, the testimony established that the K. family attended to the physical safety and
welfare of the children, including providing them with food, shelter, health, and clothing. The
17
evidence adduced demonstrated that the K. family aided in the development of the children by
ensuring their mental health was addressed through therapy services. Additionally, Christine K. is
the paternal great-aunt of the children, and able to foster the children’s background and ties,
including familial, cultural, and religious. Moreover, the three children remained together in the
K. home. The children attended school, with the youngest child beginning in the fall, and C.S.
received good grades. The evidence established that the children felt love and attachment from
Christine and James K. The K. home was familiar to the children, where their initial DCFS
placement in a prior case resulted in foster placement with the K. family. As such, continued
placement with them was the least disruptive placement, particularly where, as the circuit court
noted, placement in Illinois could result in the children being split among foster homes.
¶ 59 Given all circumstances in the present case, we cannot conclude that the circuit court erred
by placing guardianship with Christine and James K.
¶ 60 III. Conclusion
¶ 61 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 62 Affirmed.
18