mr chief justice and may it please the court my name is john schmidt i'm from the office of the attorney general and i represent the people of the state of illinois this is a case grounds the first one being that the majority felt that incidents that happen outside the presence of the children should not have been considered at all and then when only the incidents that took place in front of the children were considered the majority felt that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a fight the finding of neglect based upon injurious environment justice holdridge dissented he would have considered all of the evidence of all of the incidents in question which is what the circuit c did and he felt based on the fatality of the circumstances that the circuit court's decision was not against the manifest weight of the yeah but it's the majority relied largely on two decisions one of which was the appellate court j p decision but that decision out of the first district really supports exhibited a bad temper made threats to d c fs personnel and hospital workers and some of those incidents did happen outside the children's presence and were indeed taken into account the appellate majority also relied very much upon this court's prior decision in the n b a case a two thousand case in which there were two which involved two outburst of anger by a mother both at directed at personnel from a county health agency but we believe that n b c also provides support for the state's position because this court emphasized in and be the three things were not present that are present here the first would be a lack of evidence today be that the mother's a girl or blinded her to the interests of the children indeed in a and b in a sense in the first angry and said that she c be seen as defending her children's and interests although her behavior was certainly inappropriate she was upset that she was not able to get regular milk for them here we have angry displays by the father on several untrue several occasions that show that his anger would blind him to the children's interests assaulting his own sister in front of the children punching her was certainly not in his children's in interests that would be highly traumatic for children to see it's also an example of it also sets a very poor example for his children and also the incident in which he met with his son's principal to discuss the suspension ended up saying throwing the suspension notice across hallway or across the room and then being escorted out by a police officer he had brought there for some unknown reason that's again that was in front of his son that setting a very poor example and it even goes beyond that because soon after that about three weeks later his son ends up being pulled out of school so instead of trying to resolve his son's disciplinary problems the father aaron sr is allowing his anger to cause him to make a decision that's not rational and not good for his son's interests we have also the two incidents in which the children were missing and in one instance they were  at the grandfather's house so the grandfather and the sister came by notifier and senior where the children were and to find out what's going on why did they run off and aaron seniors first reaction is to curse and to try to get into a fight with us father which fortunately was broken up but again he's not is allowing his anger to blind him to what is good for the children the saying was true a few days later when he bought his son was back at the grandfather's house and he ends up throwing a fit and cursing at a police officer who is there to help him because the police officer is trying to elicit information he ends up throwing a cell phone and smashing it against her garage and it turned out a son wasn't even present so you have numerous instances where the children the anger is showing that over and seniors blinded to his children's interests he also and he mentioned that there were no there was no evidence of physical assaults well certainly that's not the case here there was of course the assault by alan sr against his own sister in the children's presence ten years earlier aaron sr had literally beaten his mother now growing up had that incident was quite remote in time but it provides a backdrop that shows that when this man's anger gets out of control terrible consequences can ensue and that was evidence of course that has anger was getting out of control a number of times within not the case here there were two incidents and then be again both are right but at the same county health agency here there were eight within a year and they were directed against a multiplicity of targets often against people who are trying to help their own senior in several instances against police officers and somebody who's going to behave that way toward a police officer so i think would think there's a risk that if he loses control in front of a police officer it's not likely he would hesitate to do so in front of children and we also have evidence in this case that the anger was affecting the children especially the inside and i discussed where erin junior is being removed from school but also erin junior had made a statement to the d c fs caseworker who sister who said that her brother had been a good person very well being good man but at the time of the assault he changed and since then had been very angry and confused what is the standard it would be an abuse of discretion standard because i regard i would say that that's a question of whether the evidence was rather than and the courts sufficiency of the evidence case and be worked at the evidence that was presented and said and the court concluded that's not enough and one other important factor in and b was there is a d c fs case worker testifying in that case but that caseworkers said the mother was being cooperative with t c f ice the mother was meeting regularly with the c f s caseworkers and the caseworker had observed interaction between the mother and the children and found yes the mother occasionally became frustrated with the children but no more so than other parents would and the mother's behavior toward the children was appropriate in contrast to that cooperative mother in this case you have a known cooperat mother and father both of them originally agreed in mid march of two thousand sects that yes will accept you c f s services i believe the main concern then was their child their son was not in school the daughter was but the son was not going to school but a few days later the d c fs caseworker shows u to inquire and to get the services going and is thrown off the property and told to go get counseling herself and that was a l family meeting to the d c fs arranged with the adult members of erin seniors family but that yes of erin seniors found what that broke down as well and after that both parents simply refused to cooperate all with t c f us so i think that's another striking contrast between the two cases and that's another example of the children's interests being disregarded when there's a situation where i believe obviously some help was needed for these parents there were issues with these parents that needed to be addressed so that's another very important factor that distinguishes the used two cases and that would justify  upholding the circuit court's decision as i stated in may answer to justice garman the abuse of discretion standard of review would apply in determining what evidence could properly be considered and i think when this case is examined as a whole when the totality of circumstances are taken into account as justice holder it's felt should have been done  it can't be said that it was an abuse of discretion to consider evidence of incidents that happened outside the children's presence especially when some of them even though they happened outside the children's presen were relating to the children like the incidents in which the one or both children were missing and they were seeking to be found and also when the evidence has a total shows a person whose temper was of control to the extent that his anger was directed at the multiplicity of targets again unlike the of the evidence i think one other important thing to emphasize is that there is a distinction week between the nickel likely due to cation and between the evidence necessary to terminate parental rights you would be clear and convincing or a court would be clear in convincing evidence to do that here the preponderance of the evidence standard is a pluggable so it is not it is not as high reversed and that the circuit court's finding of neglect be reinstate i believe that the state is correct that the abuse of discretion standard does apply but what's different about this case is that it is not the typical injurious environment case that you would normally see in peoria county it's got some components that you see but not all of them typically the injuries environment cases that we see in purity county are longstanding standing patterns of domestic violence not just one incident that took place over ten years ago or you see evidence of diagnosed mental health issues which you do not have here there is no evidence in the record that shows that either father or mother suffers from any legitimate or diagnosed mental health issues you also don't have any evidence of drug and alcohol abuse which would be the normal case in peoria county what you see here is just the anger that often accompanies some of the other classic cases and supports petitions but in and of itself does not usually drive in they'd like to petition and in this case i think that the third district correctly observed that over half of the incidents that were alleged took place outside of the presence of the children  being stopped by a police officer for not having your seatbelt on when no children are present when you're in a low income neighborhood and you're african american in the police officer as white would be aggravating and whether his conduct was appropriate or not is really not the question the question is whether or not there's a connection between that behavior and him putting his children at risk for not providing a safe and nurturing environment for his children there is no connection between what he did that night and how his children are being raised or protected by him and his wife way over in another part of the city similarly this case does not have a safety plan that is a typical component of a lot of s cases and a lot of petitions you see that the parents were cooperating with a safety plan that was put in place by the department they since breached that nat's what's creating the injury somebody that there was no safety plan in this in this case there was a request by the department for the parents to come in and talk about the situation their son was not in school they were going to try to address them issues some of which included the father's anger but none of which included an official plan in place that was violated by the so it's one thing to say that they're not cooperating which they were not and it's another thing to say that they were not violating a safety plan which is a whole different set of circumstances why can't the judge determine which is the role of it didn't and which isn't and look at the totality of circumstances and make a determination what happened on the other side of town really what's relevant to this why can't they just let it all sort of not being admitted i think they can i'm not disagreeing with you on that point i think that anything and everything can fall into what creates an interesting vironment what meets minimum parenting standards what doesn't meet minimum hearing standards certainly if you are dealing drugs out of your home and there's a drug raid in your home your children are present that's an injurious environment but if you're using drugs one time recreationally five years ago and you get caught by the police before you've even conceived a child that's something totally different and if you want to consider that as a pattern of drug use during the course of and leading up to your drug raid certainly there's a continuum there but just picking and choosing things that were so far removed and then trying to bundle it up in this fairly remote in time then there was the incident where dad punched his sister in the presence of the minors and that certainly was the third district alluded to was agreed but the one incident in and of itself absent all the cumulative question that was asked and i'm not saying that you can't accumulate all of those things but in this case even if you did accumulate all of those things there is not a sufficient nexus between those things and a breach of the parenting standard and that meeting minimum parenting standards there are certain go ahead are just going to say i want to make sure i understand your position you're not saying then that it was here for the trial or to admit these incidents that occurred outside the pres i think that you can admit those things but i think that being said you really do still have to look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether to determine whether or not a person is failing to meet minimum parenting standards i think the court especially when you sit in juvenile court and you're sitting at the trial level they hear everything and you can't discount certain things just because they happened outside the presence and include certain things just because they happened inside the presence of minors you do have to look at the whole spectrum but this is not neglect certainly as in the case of j p but you can't make gigantic leaps in those inferences i think this case of anger and maybe some bizarre behavior and maybe some violent erratic behavior is certainly something the trial court took into consideration but that behavior did not then connect to how their children were being harmed mistreated or not properly cared for it's one thing to misbehave out in public it's one thing to misbehave in social settings it's one thing to misbehave around adults but this is another thing to do that at home in front of your children where they're not being cared for properly or being raised in a nurturing environment and i think that there is not that connection in this particular case a used to work in the jail used to be a correctional officer and had lost his job and the family was struggling financially and the records showed that this family the wilson family had supported their extended family during their extended families periods of trying times financially but then when it came time for the wilsons to rely on them it became not a two way street and so they were struggling the mother has always worked part time jobs burglars you know different retail things of that nature but they were if not gainfully employed between legitimate jobs at the time we were working for him till he they were working family they had a home they they were married they were married before they had kids they were not the classic case that you see in purity county juvenile court they were struggling at the time and i think he was struggling emotionally at the time but i think that they still were meeting minimum parenting standards  there was no evidence that the kids didn't have food that they were malnourished that they weren't being taken to the doctor one of them was not in school and was struggling in school was suspended from school but elise was in school and was making good grades they weren't behavior troubles mother had no criminal history it just was some dark bizarre behavior by the father that when bundled together still wasn't enough but apparently the circuit or the trial judge felt like it was and they had been sheltered too which i think makes a difference and by that i mean they were sheltered before the petition was filed and so when the case was pending there was always this presumption that the kids are not in the home while the petition is pending which i think makes a difference too for the trial judge yes your honor it's true that this isn't a case where there was a direct where there was evidence from a  psychologist showing mental health issues but it's very difficult to get that evidence when the parents simply won't cooperate it's also difficult to find out exactly what's going on in the home one the parents decide that b c f caseworker d c s caseworkers won't be allowed to enter and simply shut them out and i think i think therefore it shouldn't be  surprising that that evidence couldn't be a deuced here but mr smith at what point in time to d c s have the right to enter the home to ask for this kind of information there was some allegation there were no orders in effect directing him to do anything at that point is that correct that that's correct that and i think the appellate court's order would have been referring to those situ that period in march of two thousand and six when d c f i o s first was called and they were called then after the first of the missing children incident and it's not clear who called  twenty eighth the that petition would have been would have been filed and then a few weeks after that in late april the court actually ordered  that the children could be taken into custody during the month of april there were incidents taking place in the record goes or if like this were d c fs caseworkers were showing up at the house and nobody was answering the door aaron jr later told the caseworker railing colossi that they were the family was indeed home one of those times but they were told by the parents he was told by the parents not to answer the door technically ed i suppose at no point would the parents ever be compelled to them at that at that point and i think even before that i'm at a period where they had agreed to services and acknowledged a need and thereby acknowledge the need to address the issues and the fact that they subsequently refused to allow d c fs to provide that help i think that could be taken against them too and showing like the march seventeenth incident where erin se caseworker away and said go get counseling yourself i think that's another showing that he's simply allowing anger to blind him to what's best for his children and in that situation what's best for his children is that the parents address they were a shooters especially aaron sr who had obviously shown some anger issues at that time and it's also true there was no safety plan in the case safety plan is something that the parties must agree to parents must agree to it early and they simply are breed that they would accept services but then steadfastly refused to cooperate with the c f s so in a situation like that there's not going to be a safety play and you can't get the parents to agree but of course plenty of abuse and neglect cases do go ahead without safety lines you know with with