and j p by reason of an injury assumed vironment and secondly whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it is meted into evidence of record from the paediatric research center first we are asking this court stage proceeding when as here the first up a petition for education is brought alleging abuse and neglect by reason of the injurious environment and i'll just say right up right away that the allegation of abuse that was originally brought in the case of a p the trial court found was not just that people did not proof it was the allegation of because a certain condition or conditions exist such as is defined in section two three one b which is pertinent to this case so an environment which is injurious to his or her welfare and it makes sense that the  dept point that the initial focus is on the child stay out of us because after all the act as set forth in section one two the mandate of the act is to protect children so the court is not interested in assigning blame it's just interested to restage of what is this child status as does the evidence but by a preponderance of the evidence show neglected and not whether a parent has been collectable that it's just not now the focus of the the proceeding there but then the court went on to state but you know mother here he had no reason to know or suspect that her boyfriend might act neglect fully while her children were in their care his care while she was here you know her doctor's appointment or that he wouldn't provide a safe and nurturing environment well  as he was caring for them and so the court you know it did focus that was it swung its focus and said we we need to focus on that and the child but then it swung right over to the mother and and said the case a month later for dispositional hearing that's correct and at that time the court found the mother to be fit returned the child and close the case that's right know i mean that really what happens when you take a shit happens is that if you know if the neglect finding is made services or offered right away to the family to get you know to the children's status and a family more stable once the case is closed they can continue receiving services the juvenile court act those files are confidential so there's really no like this the focus is on the child and not on the parents that's right and so does this finding have any consequences on the mother and the mother and that unless you know i mean the pub nobody's going to know it like i said it's not it doesn't come up in background checks for employment so it's not discoverable that way now mother was not indicated if for instance in a case where  the parents he has been indicated here the boyfriend was indicated for neglect after at the end of the d c s investigation but if mother in a case and that's not this case had be what would happen here in the room other there's really no ramifications i'm other day on you know if there were service is offered in if it wanted them they would have been available but other than that we understand the difference of neglect is the child or not is the mother but i mean a nine neglectful mother for example and that would be her position here right would have suffered the indignity  defending their actions or meat is a totally moot in that sense well i understand you know that that's very a very human reaction is that nobody wants the x to have occurred or to be today cation should not have been made the problem with that approach of course is that there are times when you're not going to nobody's going to be able to actually pin down what actually happened and yet you know from the evidence that something occurred and something is amiss and things need to be remediated in order to stabilize the family and keep children safe if you need to if you can't make that finding without  finding that somehow a parent is to blame than death leaves you know children who are nevertheless in need of protection and care without the act and so that's what you know we're asking for in reaching its decision the appellate courts concluded that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence of record of a doctor from the pediatric resource really it's the business records exception to the hearsay rule so it was a record for that report eighteen months later no no no definite that report was three authenticity of this rather than having a record keeper come in and testify and say yes this is such and such record it was made this is how we make it and you know it was made in the usual course of the business section two eight the foundation to feel that to be done through a certification so it had to certification that this is this report was prepared in the usual course of business of the pediatric resource center and it is the pediatric resource centers business to make this record and that it's you know and so that's what that's what it had and then it had all of you know that the report and the examination no there are any you know discussion as to what the e  whatever it is is or how these records are generated or we get the arguments made that this is not done in their intercourse this is this was done in anticipation litigation what was there any discussion at the hearing in the pediatric resource center itself indicate that it's affiliated with i believe st francis hospital and a part of the university of illinois college of medicine so that that's what the court here and you know the court is the trial court ok it's within its discretion to decide what to what to admit or not and you know it looks at these records and it seems records coming before it on a daily basis and it the p t a pediatric research centers hav and reviewing the medical records of the child and some d c s notes and photographs that were taken of him and that these you know if she's a doctor and these are things that you know doctors do and it's got the indications of reliability that a medical record normally hazarded a business record normally has and there would be no reason to find it is not what it's present because it included cause it's conclusions as to cause ation and some conclusions that it couldn't have happened the way this fellow babysitter that the boyfriend didn't ride when he first told the police his first story of i think it was that he was in the bathroom and a p ran in and fell headfirst into a tub of water  but then to his when he told he finally told the story that you know he turned on the water and left the house leaving the kids unsupervised so their it's thirty five to be that whatever is in ads that's evidence that the court is going to weigh along with whatever other evidence it has and so it's going to weigh whatever you know it's going to give up the weight whatever that he has without any kind of testimony explaining what it is and here i mean to the court did not accept the you know the conclusions that it's that i don't understand french that means and i think this is the doctor along with all the other evidence i can't find that this was abuse that the state did not approve of use here so the court did it exercised its discretion and looked at whether this is allowed to be admitted under section two eight hundred four a with the delegation and in its discretion it decided that it did and then it weighed the evidence and gave it the way to do it does believe that deserved it here so really i mean this is a good example of you know how this provision works together with the evidence that comes into the into the trial court but in this instance wasn't being introduced as a substitute language of section one hundred four a but then without testimony as to what this means the court couldn't find that it meant you know it just could not understand what it meant as he said i don't know what this means i think this is you know her best guess so you know i mean i think that would be the same with any evidence that you're going to bring in if you're going to present it if you have a record keeper come and say this is you know how this was darren and the course says ok you met that requirement but then you don't have anybody to testify as to what it is then the evidence and you know it's going to have whatever way it has in regard to and the trial court you know i do it's used to looking at this kind of it's evidence it's a judge that  exercises discretion again and weigh the evidence thank you thank you for the questions time has expired counsel for the happily questions first that the circuit court go too far in its interpretation of what constitutes an environment jurist to the welfare of a minor and secondly that the circuit court exceed your thore under the juvenile court act and overstepped the boundaries of basic due process in admitting an opinion letter in lieu of live testimony by the opinion witness with respect to the first issue we believe the third district correctly concluded that there was not an environment the facts below clearly establish that neither parent caused any injury to their children or fail to protect either of their children in fact in other words neither parent failed to exercise the care that their circumstances justly demanded and there was no evidence that the enter injuries at a minor a p could have been predicted by the parents and certainly without the ability to predict what was going that a child would be injured it was impossible for either parent to prevent the child from being injured the state is urging a radical departure from the established understanding of neglect by spazzing a broad and unconstrained interpretation interpretation expanded the traditional definition of insurance environment to include a parent's child being injured while the care of virtually anyone with fleeting contact and transitory authority over the child under the circuit court's definition coaches teachers even daycare providers who injure a child can generate a finding in the glad the circuit court's interpretation of an environment in jersey  not only expanded the concept of insurance from parent from the parent's home but to someone else's house in this case a boyfriend's house will live separately from the mother it also flew in the face of the existing appellate  established by the first which required for knowledge on the part of the parent the dangers propensities of the third party caregiver and as an aside i would note that the abuse and neglect the child reporting act and a juvenile court ag has have provisions that state that a child is not considered a quote neglected child those go for the sole reason that the child's parent has left the child in the care of an adult relative for any period of time now it's hard to imagine that our legislature would reject a finding neglect under those circumstances but which by neglect merely by leaving the child with any other adult we believe the third district court  was correcting green went on ramsey and reversing the circuit course determination of neglect what is the neglect that we should focus on the action of the mother and leaving the child or the children with the boyfriend or the action of or what occurred in the boyfriend's home with the child getting injured well the disk or in a number of courts have a body of case law that suggests that this is an amorphous concept i just quoted that one of the one of the criteria is did the parent exercise or fail to exercise  care that the circumstances justly demand under the circumstances so there's a there's a variety of criteria that we're looking at if we look at the case law we lined up the case law they are telling us it and you're you're asking about neglect but and i understand that but does this particular neglect isn't just environment neglect not all are the same it's a very it's a subset of neglect and under those circumstances minor standing in the case laws is a very strong focus on did the parents do what they were supposed to do or are not now i understand i'm right arthur h says we just look at the whether the child was neglected somebodies part who has some responsibility over the top i would submit that not every injury constitutes neglect so it's again my answer is essentially the best answer i can give you under the law is that it depends on the circumstances there may be janet times when a child child is injured and we can find that there is neglect because of something the guardian or to care taker did or did not do or some omission or commission i'm not asking the court to decide whether one parent did something wrong and the other i believe though that and i understand that this might be a little  beyond what what you bass but this is a situation where the state is seeking to intervene in a family and we know that the family relationship the care custom control that the parent parents have and over their children is a fundamental right and so if the state is going to intervene into that relationship at least under our constitution as i understand it there has to be a and in this case there was nothing that the in fact in this case there is nothing more that the mother could have done than what she had done are you arguing that we should find that the finding  right there there was an attempt to the argument that the respond made as well i didn't do anything wrong so the child can't be in the way well that the court was not going to try to decide whether one parent had some culpability or another one did it as simply sa we have a child clearly not properly dress has some some medical you know whatever and we're not going to not do anything we know there was a problem we know there's a problem with some of the other children there was a new jersey environment component to that as well but but the state's intervention was warranted under those circumstances because there was evidence suggesting that somebody had dropped the ball with respect to these kids who had responsibility and legal authority over these children  you've used the term environment injurious to welfare which is the language of the statute is does that mean something more than one incident of neglect or one incident of an injury again unfortunately the answer is a typical lawyers answer which is it depends on the circumstances and it depends on on the type of injury it depends on what you know what surrounds that circumstances certainly if you're leaving if you're a twenty story building and or on a balcony that has no fence and you let you put children play out there and they get hurt one time that's probably going to do the trick but if they're running around in the basement or you know somewhere in the house and they trip and they hurt themselves that an entirely different matter so on so again i'm sorry i can't answer that because every the court has indicated that these decisions us were generis and to some extent we have to look at those facts i would submit the fact yeah so the so maybe i just want to make sure i understand a question if that is the question that if there's up a hotline called that the only information that that's imparted at that time is that there's been this in this case there was a burn and then other information is attorney will make it known to the to the court whether there have been other hotline calls with respect to that child or that parent and seek to introduce evidence along those lines so to the extent that they're aware of it so but that would have to be in the petition it would have to be that evidence would have to be presented for the judge to be aware of that but yes once that information is before the court the court certainly could consider those other if there were other circumstances that would warrant  or by themselves or in combination with this particular latest incident the court could consider that in the record other than the fact that my client had gone to the doctors on the way home received a call that her child had been scalded it be duly raised home took the child and nearly took the child to them urgency the child was taken down here to springfield to the burn unit the child was treated and of course she's not with the boyfriend anymore but i do want to address if i'm worried or it is this case hinged on the fact that the based on an array m z the criteria is that if you don't know something's going to happen you know it's hard to really say that you dropped the ball in terms of your what the circumstances require as a parent your duty as a parent if she had known that  i believe had a propensity for injuring children have been indicated once twice three times by that he said fast then that would have been that we've been an issue the question had come out whether this is is this is moo i would argue and i think i did in my brief that there are some very serious consequences that come out of this this kind of a situation make no mistake about it there is damage to innocent person simply by  and usually the discussion is this quick thinker relief case is closed we look either any other collateral consequences is this he finding by this and by the trial court or have any ramifications in the future but i believe it does i'm obviously it could repeat itself and that would be one criteria for hearing it notwithstanding that it may have been resolved in favor of my client but yes there were there isn't a case to report on the boyfriend and to the responsible by the juvenile court has the effect of automatically causing any appeal of an indicator report to be dismissed so that's a very real legal consequence and therefore she certainly that's one person that she would want to have a relationship with that person but it certainly would put would affect her ability to have a relationship with if he hasn't indicated report yeah this doesn't matter is also is that if the really wasn't neglect  whom who was responsible for the neglect all we know is that it's another allegation of a petition has to be dealt with but i think there are very real consequences as i said mr my look around low i may be mistaken about what's in the statute but i thought that when a case proceeds when they're seeking to terminate parental rights there's a provision in the state statutes that allows x number of findings in the black or abuses the case may be to be the foundation for determination of parental rights is that correct or not  the case then that would be collateral for sure if not directly to be a direct problem in the future as a parent to defend against the termination you see exactly in what you and what you end up with a neglect finding is that you end up with problems where all the state has to do is allege that there was that the mother there was a neglect finding the mother was a party and it might be very very difficult at the trial level to try to say well no you can't apply that standard he can't use rescue caught here my client had nothing to do with it you know you may not get that far so it can't it can result i believe and further proceedings down the road or possible is that you just as indicated possibly germination but i can't tell you for sure off the top of my head that there is something in adoption that i know i want time there were there was something i don't know if it was still good law so and of course the moon this issue wasn't raised below as well i want to talk a little bit of pediatric resource our concern was that in fact it was hard it was harmful in the in the sense that while the court the law may have rejected the finding of abuse the court didn't reject the notion that that individual honey collected the child in other words  that assessment of what had happened i believe colored the child's judge's opinion in terms of whether there was neglect in the first place and so it did have i believe an impact on  ability of the court to make a finding that there was neglect also but i want to be clear with respect to the doctor pietrusza letter which is part of the pediatric resource center records which is p r c that that we know from the record that it was a safety plan and put in place before the child was examined we know that on august eighteenth it was referred to p r c by i d c it has an investigator who called it a new case we know that the child was examined on august nineteenth of two thousand and ten and then we know from the from a case known that the one from mr macleish was charged with endangering the life of a child sometime before october twenty first of two thousand and ten and then a s your honors first with regard to justice tyson's question as to whether or not its mission of the pediatric resource center records was harmless error in this case if indeed it was error than it was there was no harm here because the trial courts did not rely on that i mean it specifically rejected i just didn't accept her opinion in the first place and did not base its decision of neglect by reason of injurious environment and on that report so secondly  if you find this case moot then really discord should vacate the appellate opinion be low because the public opinion below is just wrong it's contrary to arthur h it does face it did reverse the trial court's finding on the basis that the mother could not know this was going to happen and so it did put you know a factor that was not related to the status of the child into so clear that that's just not what the focus of the into the tour hearing is and that is not actually what the what the purpose of the act is that it's not to find him guilty to protect the welfare of the minor and to stabilize families wherever that's possible regarding the collateral effect of whether or not a finding of neglect would be considered down the road for instance and terminations for seedings at that point  this family has gone through the whole process of reasonable you know reasonable efforts being made to parents not making reasonable progress within all the time frames and so a single this is this juvenile court you know a few to cation finding would not be you know that maybe in next case a you know a collateral effect but it's certainly not going to be whatever tips the balance to you know for bringing you  know terminations proceedings because there's just a lot that goes on before terminations ever occurs so you know i mean generally it there is not going to be a collateral effect on other than as i stated earlier u t c first does provide continue to provide services for families who have gone through this process in the hopes that  the family can remain stable and the child's welfare will be ensured regarding  that may be  regarding whether or not h r three was wrongly decided arthur age is so clearly the right decision because it does protect children who need protection even where it can't be determined ever maybe what exactly curd that caused this injurious environment and that really needs to be kept in place  it can't be the case they act one injury or something if you say well ok day that's your warning but it's the child that if he's tired if you have a child at risk and the focus has to be on the child at that point in then the parent to have at the disposition hearing will focus on the parent and do what needs to be done if anything and it could be as in this case the parent found fit in the case is closed but that the focus yesterday maine the way it is it really needs to do to his two step process is the correct process and what the legislature obviously intended as this court so clearly explain arthur age and if there aren't any more questions was the fact that the mother wasn't aware there was no evidence the mother was aware of the boyfriend having done this in the past birds or was that one of he didn't think that she had reason to know that i'm her boyfriend would act neglect fully in the manner that he did and so i took it into a into consideration at the disposition stage where that's rightly taken into consideration why should taken into consideration at ideas and whether or not there is a finding of brickwork use of the fact that it would be violation to earth or age for this or find that the mother's lack of knowledge of the they're there whether or not the parent know he's in advance that as you said you know something some person has a proclivity to to behave in a certain way that's going to put their child at risk obviate the fact that this child is every risk in this child was at risk and something occurred so this to require some kind of notice that the parent had you know knew this  just it undercuts it undercuts it weakens the policy of the act to protect children because it leaves children at risk and so it can't be they at a finding of neglect would be dependent on whether or not the parent knew and that's why then the parent you know gets there at the next step you're going to look at that because if the parent didn't know and in the meantime there is the services that go into place and whatever assessments need to be done to ensure that the parent is fit deck can be done and you've got the time to do that and that what about placing the child in a child they care center it seems to me it might be considered differently if the parent knew that there were a number of problems that the speakers children were being injured or  about this i i would offer that that's since these cases are always sweet generous and bait and affect basis so whatever those circumstances may be but different they are leaving your child with a boyfriend a daycare center presumably is going to be licensed and regulated and so there's first parents parents friends are not licensed to have children but then again i mean that's that's all through your bringing into your family home and your family life and so there's and then hands on knowledge of whether or not there person you brought into the body as a proclivity to neglect  doesn't that doesn't the knowledge of the doesn't the knowledge of the parent then affect whether or not there is neglect if you don't know that the person has any problems and treating her children just as you assume the daycare has to be the two step process because the focus has to be on the child's environment and not leaving death out at risk and that's that doesn't adjudicated the parent neglectful i mean that death just says this child is in a situation that needs to be remedied and so now we can remedy that because it needs to be remedied and whether or not anybody knew number one one three eight seven five and re a p and all this taken in your environment is agenda number ten