2020 IL App (4th) 190672-U 

NOS. 4-19-0672, 4-19-0673 cons. 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

In re S.M., a Minor

(The People of the State of Illinois,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

 v. (No. 4-19-0672) 

David M.,

 Respondent-Appellant). 

_______________________________________________

In re V.M., a Minor 

(The People of the State of Illinois,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

 v. (No. 4-19-0673) 

David M.,

Respondent-Appellant).

)

) 

) 

) 

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of 

Macon County 

No. 19JA136 

No. 19JA137 

Honorable 

Thomas E. Little, 

Judge Presiding.

 

 JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Justices Cavanagh and Harris concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court’s August 2019 neglect finding was not against the manifest 

weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 In May 2019, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship as to S.M. 

(born in August 2008) and V.M. (born in May 2007), the minor children of respondent, David 

M., asserting the minor children were both neglected and abused. After an August 2019 

adjudicatory hearing, the Macon County circuit court found the minor children were neglected

and abused as alleged in the petition. After a September 2019 dispositional hearing, the court 

(1) found respondent unfit and unable to care for the minor children, (2) made the minor children 

FILED

January 15, 2020

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme 

Court Rule 23 and may not be cited 

as precedent by any party except in 

the limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1). 
- 2 - 

wards of the court, and (3) placed the minor children’s custody and guardianship with the 

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). 

¶ 3 Respondent appeals, contending the circuit court erred by finding the minor 

children were neglected and abused. We affirm.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 The minor children’s mother is Jennifer H., who is not a party to this appeal. The 

State’s May 2019 petitions alleged the minor children were neglected pursuant to sections 2-

3(1)(a) and 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-

3(1)(a), (1)(b) (West 2018)) and abused under section 2-3(2)(ii) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 

ILCS 405/2-3(2)(ii) (West 2018)). All three allegations asserted the minor children lived in a 

“blended family” home where the conditions were very poor with garbage and clutter all over the 

home. Further, the school-aged children attended school with dirty and smelly clothes and very 

poor hygiene, which led the children to be ridiculed and humiliated by their school peers. 

Additionally, the eldest child in the home had behavioral issues and had been abusing the 

younger children and animals. “Neither the parent nor the stepparent ha[d] taken steps to correct 

the behaviors or obtain proper treatment for the child, despite court involvement several years 

ago, and ongoing, current intact services.” 

¶ 6 On August 15, 2019, the circuit court held the adjudicatory hearing. The State 

presented the testimony of (1) Ashley Moffett, a DCFS investigator; (2) Tamela Brown, a DCFS 

child protection specialist; (3) Trisha Morehead, an intact case aide worker for the Youth 

Advocate Program; (4) Christine Foster, a parenting educator for the Youth Advocate Program; 

(5) Amanda Aubert, a housing advocate with the Youth Advocate Program; (6) Sara King, 

V.M.’s counselor with the Youth Advocate Program; and (7) Sandra Puhlman, an intact 
- 3 - 

supervisor for the Youth Advocate Program. The State also presented photographs of 

respondent’s home that were taken on May 1, 2019. Respondent testified on his own behalf. 

¶ 7 Moffet testified she received a report in early April 2019 about V.M. (1) having 

cut the hair of another child who was staying at respondent’s home and (2) being mean to the 

other child. Concerns about supervision of the minor children were also raised. As part of her 

investigation, Moffet went to the minor children’s school to talk to them. Both minor children 

had stained, dirty clothes and matted hair. V.M. also smelled. S.M. reported V.M. frequently hit 

her and was mean. When S.M. tells on V.M., no one makes V.M. stop. V.M. admitted she gets 

mad sometimes and does hit people. However, she denied cutting the other child’s hair. 

¶ 8 After school, Moffet met with respondent at his home. Respondent admitted he 

was not very good at disciplining the minor children. He did not know anything about hair 

cutting and had not observed any hitting recently. At that time, respondent’s home looked fine. 

¶ 9 Less than a month later, Moffet received a report about S.M. and V.M. smelling 

really bad, wearing dirty clothes, and having messy hair. This time when Moffet went to 

respondent’s home, the home was in complete disarray with trash on the floor, dirty and moldy 

pans in the kitchen sink, an overflowing litter box, and clutter everywhere. Moffet went in the 

home’s basement and saw trash and clothes everywhere. According to Moffet, the home was not 

a healthy environment for the minor children to be living in. Respondent explained he had a 

heart condition and could not do too much. Respondent also reported he lacked a washer and a 

dryer. He stated he was trying his hardest. Respondent’s adult daughter, Amber M., and her 

child, Chloe M., were also living in the home. A man unknown to Moffet informed Moffet he 

was living in the home. The unknown man told Moffet the minor children were eating moldy 

food. Prior to her initial investigation, respondent was receiving intact services and had a youth 
- 4 - 

advocate.

¶ 10 When Moffet went to the minor children’s school for the second time, the social 

worker reported the minor children were smelly and V.M.’s odor was so bad that other children 

would not stand next to her. The other children were making fun of V.M. V.M. was wearing the 

same clothes for three to five days straight. The school’s principal also voiced concerns over the 

minor children’s smell and clothes. The principal noted V.M. smelled like cat urine. Given the 

conditions of the minor children and the home, Moffet took protective custody of the children on 

May 1, 2019. 

¶ 11 Brown testified she investigated the living conditions of the minor children and 

the discipline used in the home in January 2019. Brown exited the investigation in March 2019. 

The report was not indicated. At that time, respondent lived with the minor children, Amber, and 

his grandchild, Chloe. Amber’s other child, Emma, visited every Wednesday and every other 

weekend. Respondent denied two other adults lived in the home. The Youth Advocate Program 

was already involved with respondent when Brown investigated. Brown also noted respondent 

had been receiving intact services since late fall 2018. 

¶ 12 Morehead testified the Youth Advocate Program became involved with 

respondent and the minor children in October 2018 due to environmental issues. As the case 

aide, Morehead would meet with respondent once a week and try to set up goals for respondent. 

When she started, respondent was living in a trailer. The trailer was very dirty and cluttered. 

The back bathroom did not work, and one could fall through the floor in the laundry room. 

Clothes were everywhere in the minor children’s room. In December 2018, the family moved 

into a home. They kept the home clean for a little bit, but the home became cluttered with dirty 

dishes on the counter. Morehead made chore charts for the minor children, having V.M. do the 
- 5 - 

dishes every day, S.M. take out the garbage, and the girls taking turns cleaning the cat litter 

boxes. However, no one followed through with the chore charts. Respondent did not establish 

any discipline in the home. When she would visit the home, Morehead observed ashtrays had 

been dumped on the floor and other garbage was present on the floor as well. Morehead would 

tell respondent he needed to pick the stuff up while she was there. Morehead had to make him 

do it. When Amber’s mother died, respondent and Amber received the mother’s washer and 

dryer. The washer and dryer helped with the clothes until the washer broke. Morehead noted 

Amber did a lot more of the cleaning and tried to make sure everything was somewhat picked up. 

The house was cleaner when Amber was around. 

¶ 13 Morehead also had to discuss V.M.’s hygiene with respondent on a weekly basis. 

Morehead would tell respondent he needed to make sure V.M. was clean before she went to 

school. Morehead included hygiene tasks on the minor children’s chore chart. However, 

respondent did not make the minor children do the chores on the chart. 

¶ 14 Foster testified respondent was referred to her for parenting classes in January 

2019 because respondent needed help with disciplining the minor children and learning how to 

clean his home. The program consisted of 17 classes at the Youth Advocate Program office, and 

respondent did attend the classes. Any class he missed, he made up with Foster. However, 

respondent did not do his homework for the classes. Respondent told Foster he had a heart 

condition and had trouble writing. Foster suggested respondent could have Amber write out the 

answers for him. For the last class, respondent did complete his homework, but it was clear 

Amber had answered the questions and not respondent. According to Foster, respondent’s 

participation in the parenting classes was minimal. Foster did not pass respondent and 

recommended respondent take the parenting class again. Foster had not yet received another 
- 6 - 

referral for respondent to retake the parenting class.

¶ 15 Aubert testified she received a referral for respondent in November 2018 because 

respondent was being evicted from his trailer. Aubert helped respondent get his current 

residence. She also gave respondent (1) a food pantry list, (2) a housekeeping checklist, (3) a 

clothing voucher, and (4) a furniture voucher. As part of her job, Aubert went to respondent’s 

house regularly and talked about housekeeping and making budgets. She was in respondent’s 

home at least three times a month. Some of her visits were planned, and some were 

unannounced. Aubert closed respondent’s case on April 22, 2019, because respondent did not 

make any progress. Aubert felt respondent and Amber were not listening to what Aubert was 

saying about housekeeping and were not doing what needed to be done to maintain the home. 

Due to the lack of progress, Aubert took her supervisor with her on the April 11, 2019, visit. At 

that visit, Amber and Aubert’s supervisor got into a disagreement over whose responsibility it 

was for the home’s upkeep. Amber felt it was not her responsibility because she worked outside 

the home. At the last visit, Aubert had concerns about the home’s cleanliness but did not find 

any actual hazards. As a result of respondent’s and Amber’s lack of motivation and attitude, 

Aubert’s supervisor suggested Aubert close the case.

¶ 16 King testified she opened a case in December 2018 for V.M., who had been 

diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood and anxiety. King met with V.M. 

weekly and discussed V.M.’s hygiene and chores. V.M. reported she did her chores, but her 

hygiene was not very good. Regularly, V.M. would be very dirty, smell of urine, and have 

matted, greasy hair. King did worksheets with V.M., and V.M. could indicate she knew what to 

do to have good hygiene. However, V.M. was not doing them. V.M. was too preoccupied with 

other things to take care of her hygiene. According to King, V.M. was doing “very well” in her 
- 7 - 

current placement. V.M. is cleaner and seems much happier. Also, V.M. was no longer wetting 

the bed. As for V.M.’s behaviors, she had to adjust to the new rules and new home. Since V.M. 

has adjusted, “things have been going a whole lot better.” To King’s knowledge, V.M. was no 

longer hitting her sister. 

¶ 17 According to Puhlman’s testimony, the Youth Advocate Program received 

respondent’s case in October 2018. The referral was based on environmental concerns. The 

family was living in a trailer at the time. Puhlman described the trailer as irreparable. It had too 

many hazards, including holes in the floor and clutter everywhere. Puhlman assigned every 

possible service she could to give support to respondent and his family. She did recognize 

providing multiple services can be a “slippery slope” with the family becoming dependent on the 

services provided by the agency. In this case, it became clear respondent was dependent on the 

services. Respondent did not follow through on the agency workers’ directions. He also never 

provided medical documentation about his heart condition. In Puhlman’s opinion, respondent 

was never able to keep the residence clean. She always had a concern about the cleanliness of 

respondent’s home. Respondent’s case was no longer open at the Youth Advocacy Program due 

to DCFS intervention. 

¶ 18 Respondent testified he was currently homeless and either stayed with his father 

or a friend. Respondent believed the intact services he started receiving in October 2018 were 

due to V.M. He testified he would get V.M. up at 6 a.m. so she could take a couple of hours in 

the tub to get herself clean. He did not help her bathe or brush her teeth because she was an 11-

year-old girl. Respondent also testified both minor children had chores. He would have to make 

V.M. rewash the dishes because she would leave stuff caked on them. According to respondent, 

he never had an issue with the minor children doing their chores. 
- 8 - 

¶ 19 Additionally, respondent testified he was on social security due to congestive 

heart failure. He had a pacemaker and saw Dr. Kola for his heart condition. According to 

respondent, he would have provided documentation about his heart condition if DCFS had asked 

for it. Respondent also testified he had a stroke in November 2018 and was hospitalized for 

three days. He was discharged to his home and told to take it easy. 

¶ 20 After hearing the parties’ arguments, the circuit court found the State had proved 

all the allegations in its petition by a preponderance of the evidence. The court noted it found the 

State’s witnesses credible. The court concluded the minor children were abused and neglected. 

¶ 21 On September 4, 2019, the circuit court held the dispositional hearing. The State 

recommended the minor children be made wards of the court and DCFS be granted guardianship 

based upon the dispositional report. Respondent accepted the State’s recommendation, and the 

court also accepted the recommendation. On September 9, 2019, the court entered a written 

dispositional order (1) finding respondent unfit and unable to care for the minor children, 

(2) making the minor children wards of the court, and (3) placing the minor children’s custody 

and guardianship with DCFS. 

¶ 22 On September 26, 2019, respondent filed timely notices of appeal in sufficient 

compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303 (eff. July 1, 2017). See Ill. S. Ct. R. 660(b) 

(eff. Oct. 1, 2001) (providing the rules governing civil cases govern appeals from final 

judgments in all proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act, except for delinquency cases). Thus, 

this court has jurisdiction of respondent’s appeals under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(1) 

(eff. Mar. 8, 2016). See In re Austin W., 214 Ill. 2d 31, 43-44, 823 N.E.2d 572, 580 (2005), 

abrogated on other grounds by In re M.M., 2016 IL 119932, ¶ 31, 72 N.E.3d 260 (noting 

“dispositional orders are generally considered ‘final’ for the purposes of appeal”). This court 
- 9 - 

docketed S.M.’s case as case No. 4-19-0672 and V.M.’s case as case No. 4-19-0673. In October 

2019, this court granted respondent’s motion to consolidate the appeals. 

¶ 23 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 24 The Juvenile Court Act provides a two-step process the circuit court must utilize 

to decide whether the minor children should become wards of the court. In re A.P., 2012 IL 

113875, ¶ 18, 981 N.E.2d 336. Step one of the process is the adjudicatory hearing, at which the 

court considers only whether the minor children are abused, neglected, or dependent. See 705 

ILCS 405/2-18(1) (West 2018); A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 19. If the circuit court determines the 

minor children are abused, neglected, or dependent at the adjudicatory hearing, then the court 

holds a dispositional hearing, where the court determines whether it is consistent with the health, 

safety, and best interests of the minor children and the public for the minor children to be made 

wards of the court. A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 21. 

¶ 25 Here, respondent challenges only the first step. The State bears the burden of 

proving a neglect or abuse allegation by a preponderance of the evidence, which means it must 

show the allegations are more probably true than not. See A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 17. The State 

only has to prove a single ground of abuse, neglect, or dependency to move the wardship 

proceedings to the second step. See In re Faith B., 216 Ill. 2d 1, 14, 832 N.E.2d 152, 159 (2005) 

(noting the State need only prove one ground for neglect and thus this court may affirm if any of 

the circuit court’s bases for a neglect finding are upheld). On review, this court will not reverse a 

circuit court’s neglect or abuse finding unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

See A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 17. “A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if 

the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 17. 

¶ 26 In this case, the circuit court found the minor children were neglected under 
- 10 - 

section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2018)), which 

provides a neglected minor is “any minor under 18 years of age whose environment is injurious 

to his or her welfare.” Our supreme court has explained the terms “neglect” and “injurious” as 

follows: 

“Generally, neglect is defined as the failure to exercise the care that circumstances 

justly demand. [Citation.] This does not mean, however, that the term neglect is 

limited to a narrow definition. [Citation.] As this court has long held, neglect 

encompasses wilful as well as unintentional disregard of duty. It is not a term of 

fixed and measured meaning. It takes its content always from specific 

circumstances, and its meaning varies as the context of surrounding circumstances 

changes. [Citation.] Similarly, the term injurious environment has been 

recognized by our courts as an amorphous concept that cannot be defined with 

particularity. [Citation.] Generally, however, the term injurious environment has 

been interpreted to include the breach of a parent’s duty to ensure a safe and 

nurturing shelter for his or her children. [Citation.]” (Internal quotation marks 

omitted.) A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 22. 

¶ 27 Respondent asserts the State did not show the minor children’s environment was 

injurious to their welfare. The State disagrees, noting the evidence at the hearing showed the 

residence respondent and the minor children were living in was very dirty and cluttered with 

garbage throughout the home. The State contends living in such a home created health risks for 

the minor children and fell short of ensuring a safe and nurturing shelter for the minor children. 

We agree with the State.

¶ 28 The evidence showed the Youth Advocacy Program employees helped respondent 
- 11 - 

move from a dilapidated trailer to a single-family home in good condition. Despite the 

assistance of the Youth Advocacy Program, the home became dirty and cluttered. Moffet, the 

DCFS investigator, went to the home on May 1, 2019, which was around five months after the 

family had moved into the home. Moffet testified the kitchen had dirty pans with mold growing 

in them and the litter box was overflowing. The home had trash on the floor, and it was “super 

cluttered.” The basement of the home had clothes and trash everywhere. The State presented 

photographs of the home’s condition during Moffet’s May 2019 visit. Moffet testified 

respondent’s home was not a hygienic or healthy environment for the minor children to be living 

in. Puhlman testified sometimes the home was less cluttered than others, but the home was never 

clean. Respondent told some of the Youth Advocacy Program workers he had a heart condition 

and could not do much around the home. However, the heart condition did not relieve him of his 

parental duty to provide a safe environment for the minor children. Moreover, the evidence 

showed others in the home could assist with keeping it clean. Thus, we conclude the circuit 

court’s finding the minor children were neglected based on an injurious environment was not 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. Since the State need only prove a single ground of 

abuse, neglect, or dependency to move the wardship proceedings to the second step, we do not 

address respondent’s arguments about the other two grounds. See Faith B., 216 Ill. 2d at 14, 832 

N.E.2d at 159. 

¶ 29 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 30 For the reasons stated, we affirm the Macon County circuit court’s judgment. 

¶ 31 Affirmed.