No. 2-- 07--0779 Fi le d: 11-30-07
IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT
In re ALEXA NDER R. an d CHA RLES H., ) Ap

peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court Mi nors ) o f D e K alb Co un t y. ) ) Nos. 02--JA--28 ) 03--JA--11 ) (The Peo ple of the Stat e of Ill in ois, ) Ho no r ab le Peti tion er-A ppel l ee, v . Al ex ander R ., Sr., ) Kur t P. Klein, Res ponde nt-A ppel l an t). ) Judge, Presi din g.
PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEGR

OMETE R del

i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Re sp on den

t, A l exan de r R. , Sr. , ap

pe als th e j udg men t of the ci rcu i t cou rt of De Ka lb Cou

n ty t er minating his pa

re n tal ri gh ts to the mi

nors, Alexan

der R. and Ch

arles H. Respondent rai ses two is sues on appeal . Fi

rst, he contends that the trial court 's order fi

ndi ng that the mi

nors were negl

ected is con trar y to the man i f es t we i gh t of t he ev ide nc e. Se co nd , he ar gu es t ha t t he o r de rt er minat ing his parental ri ghts wasen tered erroneous l

y be caus e the

tria l courtfai le d to ide nt ify t he t ime p er io d it
con si dere d a s to wh

eth er h e h ad f ai l ed to "m ake r ea son

ab l e e f f ortsto correct the condi

tions wh ic h
were the basis f orthe removal

of t he childr en. " Se e 75 0 I LCS 50/ 1( D) (m)( i) (We st 200 6) . We find that we lac k jur isdict ion r ega rd ing t he fi rst or der respondent chal

le nges, so we di sm

is s that porti

on o f t he ap pe al. As t o r es po nd en t 's s ec o nd po int , we dis ag r ee an d t he r efo r e a ffir m. We la ck j urisdi ct ion regarding the or der in wh ich the neglect fi

ndi ng i s emb odied, because
re spo ndent di

d n ot ap pe al f rom th at o r de rin a t imely ma nne r . Pu r su an t t o Su pr eme Co ur t Ru leNo. 2-- 07--0779

-2-

660(b), ex cept i

n de l i nqu ency cas es, "the r ulesappl

i ca bl e to c i vi l ca se s" appl

y to ap pe als of pr o ce ed ing s u nd er t he Ju ve nile Court Ac t of 198 7 (A ct) (705 ILCS 40 5/1--1 et seq. (We st 2006 )). 134 Ill . 2d R. 660(b). Hence, in order t o vest a revi ewi

ng court with j urisdi

ction, a notice of

appeal must be f i l ed wi thi n 30 day s of a f i na l order. In re

Marri age of Si ngel , 373 I ll . App. 3d 554, 556 (2007 ). I n t his case, the m in ors were adjudi

cated neglected on February 11, 2003, and a

dis positi onal
o r de rmak ing t he m wa r ds o f t he co ur t wa s e nt er ed o n Ap r il 25, 2003. Respondent fi le d hi s notice of appeal on August 3, 2007, whi ch was withi n 30 days of the order t ermi nating h is parental ri

ghts. We find t his ca se co nt r o lled by In re M.J. , 31 4 I ll. Ap p. 3d 64 9 (200 0). In

that ca se, the court firs t no t ed t ha t wh ile a n a dju dic at o ry o r de ris not a fi nal and appeal

abl e order, a disposi

tional order gen eral l y i s. M.J. , 314 Ill . App. 3d at 654-55. T he court expla in ed: "In t hi s ca se, [t he] re spo ndent never fil ed a not ice o f app eal fro m the t rial co ur t 's dis positi onal order. Fur t her mor e, t he noti ceof appe al tha t res pon de nt f i l ed doe s n ot men ti on t he di sp osi

ti ona l orde r or a ny of the ne glec t proc ee di

ng s. The ref ore, appe l l atej urisd

i cti on was never perf

ected w i th res pect to the n

egl ect proce edi

ngs . W e di sm

i ss tha t porti on o f t his appeal chal

len gin g the fi ndi ngs at the neglect pro ceedings." M.J. , 314 Ill . App. 3d at 655. S imila r ly, i

n th i s c as e, re sp on den

t di d n ot f i l e a n oti ce of appe al un ti l af ter h i s p ar en tal ri gh ts were termi nated, ove r fo ur years aft er t he dis positi onal order in the u nder lyi

ng neg lect pr oc eed ing. We there f ore la ck jurisdi ction over and m

ust dism is s that porti

on of thi s a ppe al . Se e al so In re

Jan i ra T. , 368 Ill . App. 3d 883, 891 (2006) (reviewi ng court lacked

j urisd i cti on to c ons i de r i ss

ueof whether sufficient ev

i de nc e supp orted

tri al cou rt' s f i nd i ng s of abuse an d negl ect where respondent f

ai le d to appe al adj udicatory

order wi thi n 30 day s of sub seq uen t di sposi tion al order).No. 2-- 07--0779

-3-

Resp ond ent nex

t contends that t he trial

cour t "erre d i

n f ai l i ng to arti cul atethe ti me p eri od dur ing whi ch i t assessed reas o na

bl e ef f orts to correct the c ondi

tion [s] wh

i ch were the b asis [f

or] removal of the mi nor chi ld[ren ]." Section 1(D)(m) of the A dopt ion A ct defi nesgro unds for unfi

tness, in pert in ent part , as: "F ail ure b y a p ar en t (i ) to ma ke reasonabl

e eff ort s to co rrect t he condi

tions that were t he basi s f

or th e removal of

the chil d from the parent, o r (ii) to make reasonable pro gress toward the retu rn of t he child t o t he pa re nt wit hin 9 mont hs after an adjudic ation of n egl ected or ab us ed m i nor un de r Se cti on 2 --3 of the Ju ve ni l e C ourt A

ct of 198 7 or dep en

de nt m i nor under Se ct io n 2
- - 4 o f t ha t Ac t , o r( iii) to make reasonable pro gress t ow ar d t he r et ur n of t he ch ild t o t he pa re nt dur ing any 9- mont h per iod aft er t he end of t he i ni ti al 9-m onth pe riod f ol l owi ng the ad j udi ca ti on of ne glec ted

or ab us ed m i nor un de r Se cti on 2-
- 3 o f t he Ju ve nile CourtA ct of 1 987 or d ependent mi nor under Sect ion 2--4 of that Act." 750 I LCS 50/1(D )(m

) (We st 2006 ). Here, the trial

cou rt re l i ed on su b se cti on (i ) i n f i n di n g r es pon den t un f i t. The State also alle ged that
re spo ndent fai

led to main

tain a reasonable degree o f i nterest , concern o r respo nsi bili ty as t o th e children' s welf

are (750 I LCS 50/1(D) (b) (West 200 6) ), but t he t rial co ur t fou nd t hat t he Stat e had not pro ven

that gro und. Resp ond ent co mplainst ha t t he t r ial c o ur t "d id n o t ar t icu lat e t he t ime period bei ng consi dered" wi th r eg ar d t o it s find ing t ha t he faile d t o mak e r ea so na ble effor t s t o c or re ct t he cond i tions tha t were t he ba sis fo rt he r emo va l o f t he ch ildr en . " T his c o mpla int is illf ou nd ed
. T he r e is o nly o ne t ime pe riod r ele va nt in ju dg in g th e r eas ona ble effor t s o f a par ent . I n In re Tiff any M. , 353 Ill . App. 3d 883, 890 (2004), we explai ned:No. 2-- 07--0779

-4-

"The ni ne-m onth periods that

appl y to each sub section are as fo llo ws : s ub se ct io ns ( i) a nd ( ii)
aret o be examined in light o f only the first nine mont hs aft er t he ad judicat ion o f neglect , a nd subse ction (iii

) may be ex amine d in l i gh

t of an y ni ne -m onth pe riod f ol l owi ng the ex pi rati on of the f i rst ni ne months af ter the a dj udication of

ne gl ect." Applyingt his rule, bot h par t ies ar rive at t he prop er c onc l us i on th at the a ppl i ca bl e p eri od ra n f ornine months followi ng the date of the adj udic ation of n egl ect--February

11, 2003. It i s tr u e, as respondent poin

ts out , that eviden

ce of paren

tal unf itnes s rel ating to periods out si de o f t he init ia lni

nem on ths foll

owing the adjudication of neglect was admi tt ed at t he f

itness heari ng. The m

er e f ac t t ha t t his evidenc e wa s ad mitt ed is no t pr oblemat ic. I n add itio n t o t he al l eg ati on regardin g reasonab l e ef

f ort s and reas onabl

e progress, the St ate had al so all eged that
re spo ndent did no t maint ain a r eas ona ble deg re e o f inter est , c onc er n, o r r esp ons ibil ity re gar ding t he chi l dren 's wel f are. Se e 750ILCS 50/1(D )(b) (We st 2006 ). This g ro und of unf itnes s i s not subj ect to the time l

im itations contained in

section 1(D)( m) of the Adoption Act. S ee 750 ILCS 50/ 1( D) (b) (West 20 06) ; In re Grant M. , 307 Ill . App. 3d 865, 869 (1999) ("In this case, the evi dence i s undi sputedt hat , d ur ing t he first five years G ra nt wa s in foster care wi th Rosie, A

rthur demonstrated
an alm ost total l ack of i ntere st, conc ern , or responsi bi l i ty a s to Gran

t's welf are" ). Si nc e evi de nc e f rom out si de of

the ni ne -m onth pe riod f ol l owi ng the ad j udi ca ti on of ne glec t wa s r el

evan t to t he o t he r ground al l eged by the State , i

ts adm i ssi on wa s n ot im proper. One add itio nal que st ion r emains: Was t he t r ial c o ur t r eq uir ed t o ex pr es sly state on the re cord that it was n

ot rely in g on evi dence f rom outside of the rel evan t nine- mon

th period i n mak i n g i ts finding t hat re spo ndent failed t o mak e r eas ona ble effor t s t o c or re ct t he co ndit ions t hat wer e t he ba sis f ort he r emo va l o f t he mino r s? R eq uir in g such a f in din g would contradict som

e well-establi

shedNo. 2-- 07--0779

-5-

prin ci ple s o f ap pe llat e r ev iew
. No r mally, we "p r es ume that t he trial judge knows and f

oll ows the law unl ess the reco rd indi

cates o therwise." People v . Gaultney , 17 4 Il l . 2d 410 , 42 0 (1 996 ); se e al so In
re Marriage

of Sh arp , 3 69 I ll. App. 3d 2 71, 278 (2 006 ) ( "Thu s, be cau se t he rec ord d oesnot a l l ow us to know what occurred at th i s h ea ri n g or th e b as i s f

or th e c our t' s s uppor t order , w e m

us t pr es ume that the court followed the la wand ha d a suf f i ci en t factual ba si s f or its rul i ng" ). Simil

ar ly, unless t he record reveals

ot herwi se, the trial

court is presum ed to disregard in

competent evi

dence. Peo ple v. Gant , 18 Ill . App. 3d 61, 66 (1974) ("Ordinari ly , we wou l d p re su me th at a tria l j udge would di sreg ard incompe t ent evi

dence at a presen

tence heari

ng [ci tation], but where the record shows that t he j udge allo we d h is determi

nation of what sentenc e to impose to be af fected b y i ncom petent evi dence, then we must vacate t he sentence"); see al so People v . Cort es , 181 Ill. 2d 2 49, 291 (19 98) ; Fer gus on v. BillBerger Associ

ates, Inc. , 3 02 I ll. App. 3d 6 1, 76 ( 199 8) . Fu rt her mor e, it is us ually the a ppe llant's burden to af f i rm ati ve l y de mons trate err orf rom the record. See People v . Maje r , 131 Ill . App. 3d 80, 83 (1985) ("The well-establi shed rul e i s that an ap pellant must demo nst ra t e t he ex ist en ce o f er r o rin t he rec ord a

nd f ai l ure to do so c re ate s a presu m pti on of regul ari ty th at attaches to al

l tria l court procee di ngs "); Sch

i oni ge r v . Cou

nty of Cook , 116 Ill . App. 3d

895, 899(19 83)("T

he pre su m ption on appeal i s t ha t t he t r ia l cou rt hear d su ffi cient evidenc e o n which t o ba se it s judg ment, and t he appella nt has the bur de n o f dem

onstrating that the recor d fai ls to suppo rt t hat judgmen t")
. If we we r e t o an sw er t his fin al q ues t ion a ffi rmat ively and find err or fro m the t rial co ur t 's f ail ure to ex pl ai n th at i t wa s a ppl y i ng se cti on 1( D)(m) pro perly, we wo uld be i gnoring al

l of these princi pl es. In e ffect , w e wo uld be s aying tha t t he t rial co ur t was not awa re of t he nine- mont h l i m i tation co nt ain ed in

section 1(D)(m ) of th e Adopti on Act (750 IL CS 50/1(D)(m ) (We st 2006 )),
ort ha t , de sp it e k no win g o f t his limit at io n, it ign o r ed it
. Fu r t he r , su ch a h o ldin g w o uld imply t hat t heNo. 2-- 07--0779

-6-

tr ia l court fai le d to dis regard in competent evi

dence, at l east on the assum ption that it knew o f t h e lim itat ions period. Mo st im

port antly , we would be

say i ng th ose thi ngs wi thout an y thi ng i n the rec ord i n di ca ti n g th at th e tr i al cou rt di d n ot kn ow th e l aw or k n ew i t b ut f ai l ed to ap pl y i t. We thin k it the be tt er course to appl

y the three prin ci ple s lis ted above. Fi

rst, si nc e the record do es no t co nt ain any indicat ion t o t he co nt ra ry, w e pr esu me tha t t he trial court was aware of cases li ke Tif fan y M. , 35 3 I ll . Ap

p. 3d a t 890, wh i ch hol d tha t the peri od relev an

t in f i ndi ng w hether a par ent failed t o mak e r eas ona ble effor t s t o c or re ct t he r elevant co ndit ions is t he nine m on th s follow ingthe adj udic ation of n egl ect. Second, we presum e that the tr ia

l cou rt ap pl i ed thi s p rovi si on and disre gar ded evidenc e fro m ou t side t he ni ne - mo nt h p er io d w he n r ulin g o n t he se ct io n 1 ( D) ( m) al l egati ons, b eca use there i s n othi ng i n the rec ordthat support s a contrary concl usi on. Fi nal ly , we concl ude that because responden t, bein g the appella

nt, has f ai le d to ca rry hi s b urden of demo nst ra t ing
er r o r , t he pr o pe rco ur se is t o affir m. The Fo ur t h D ist r ict o f t he Ap pe llat e C o ur t ho lds t ha t , t o t he co nt r ar y, " wh en t he r ec o r d is uncl ear whether the trial

court exam

in ed even ts out si de of the stat utory ti me f ram e of se cti on 1(D)(m ), t hen t he ca se

sh oul d b e r em an de d w i th di re cti on s to determi

ne un fi tness onl y b y ref erence t o ev en t s w it hin t he st at ut o ry t ime fram e." In re Briann

a B. , 334 Ill . App. 3d 651, 657 (2002) . In ot her wo rd s, t hat co ur t pr esu mes er ro r w her e t he rec ord d oesnot affirmatively sho w it s abse nce. We do not be l i ev e this to be th e proper approac h. Briann a B. , 33 4 I ll. App. 3d

at 657 , cites In re J.D. , 314 Ill . App. 3d 1109, 1110 (2 00 0) , i n su pp ort of i ts hol di ng. J.D. , 3 14 I ll. App. 3d a t 111 0, in tu rn, ci tes In re E.B. , 313 Ill . App. 3d 672, 674 (2 000). W h i l e w e b el

i ev e th at E.B. was correctly

deci ded, J.D. constituted an unwarran ted appli cation of an otherw ise

sound rule , and Briann

a B. co nt inued t he
error.No. 2-- 07--0779

1 Sec ti on 1(D )(m ) of t he Ado pt ion Act was subs equ ent ly amended, re duc ing t he ti me p eri od f rom 12 m onths to 9 mon ths. S ee 75 0 ILC S 50/1 (D)(m ) (We st 2006 ). The ame nd men t ap pa r en t ly
oc cur reddu

ri n g th e p en den cy of th e c as e, as

th e S tate ' s a

l l eg ati on s w er e b as ed

on th e 1 2- mon

th
ve rs i on of the statute (see E.B. , 313 Ill . App. 3d at 673-74); however, the E.B. cour t itse l f l ate r referred to the 9-month versi on (see E.B. , 313 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 674). -7- E.B. was deci

ded i n the wake

o f In re D. L. , 19 1 I ll. 2d 1, 10 (2000 ), where our s

uprem e court fi rst hel d that t he tim

e lim its contai ned i n section 1(D)(m) of the A do pt ion Act app ly to t he "r ea so na ble eff

ort s" aswe l l

asthe "re as ona bl e p rogres s" grou

nds c onta i ne d i n th at s ec ti on. Pri

orto D.L. , num

erous court s (see D.L. , 191 Ill . 2d at 15 (Freeman , J., spec ially co nc ur ring) (c ollect ing
cas es)), including t he Fourth Distri ct (see In re K.B.J. , 305 Ill . App. 3d 917, 922 (1999)), held that t he ni ne-m onth li mi tation appli

ed onl y to the "rea so nabl e p rogres s" grou nd . Tw o al

l eg ati ons of unfi tness wer e at issue in E.B. The State alleged that t he r esp ond ent was unfit be cau se ( 1) she fai le d "to make re ason

ab l e progre ss towa

rd the re turn of the m i nor s wi thi n 1 2 m onth s of the ad j udi ca ti on of ne gl ect," 1 an d ( 2) she faile d " t o make r eas ona ble effor t s t o c or re ct t he co ndit ions t hat wer e t he ba sis for the removal of the m in ors. " E.B. , 313 Ill . App. 3d at 6 73-74, citin g 750 ILCS 50 /1 ( D) ( m) (West Supp. 1997)
. The trial court apparently

heard ev ide nce concern

in g even ts out si de of the 12-
m on th pe r io d t he n sp ec ified in

the statut e, for the E.B. court he l d, "B eca use the re cord

is uncl ear as to whet her t he circ uit co ur t exa mi ned event s o ut side t his time fra me, w e vac at e t he circ uit co ur t 's ad j udi ca ti on of [the respondent's ] unf itnes s and rem

and wi th direct ions to review the evi dence presented t o d et er mine [her ] fitne ss o nly by re fere nce t o t he ninemont hs imm ediat ely following t he adjudication." E.B. , 313 Ill . App. 3d at 674.No. 2-- 07--0779

2 Thi s c as e w asf

i l ed pri or to D.L. , 191 Ill . 2d at 10 , so no t ime p er io d w as alle ge d. I t is im port ant to not e that the tr ia l c ourt found that the State had not pro ven this ground, so t here was
no que st ion as t o w het her t he trial court im properly considered evi

dence f rom outs i de of

the statutory tim e f ram e wi th res pect to thi s coun

t. J.D. , 314 Ill . App. 3d at 1110.

-8- In E.B. , the tim

e lim it contain ed i n section 1(D)(m) appl

ie d to both all egations of unfi tness that were at i ssue. There was n

o additiona

l ground of

unf itnes s alle ged to which

evidenc e wo uld have been relev an t conce rni ng e vents occ urri ng outs i de th e statutory

tim e f ram e. A s n ot ed above, we "pre su me t hat t he tria

l j udge know s an

d f oll ows the l aw un l ess the re cord i

ndi cates otherwi se." Gaul tney , 1 74 I ll. 2d a t 420 . I n E.B. , th e adm i ss i on of evi dence from out si de the statut ory peri od, coupled wit h t he fac t t ha t t he r e w as no o t he ralle gati on to whi ch thi s evi

dence could have been
re l ev an t, in dic ated that t he trial

judge bel ie ved i t relevan t t o t he two al le gations that were at iss ue. In ot her words, t here was an

i nd i ca ti on i n th e re cord tha t the tri al cou rt di d n ot ei the r kn ow or f ol l ow t he la w. Because the record "i ndicate[d] o therwis e," applic ation of the presu mpt ion w asnot warranted. The presum

ption that the trial

courtdisre gar ded incompe t ent evidenc e wa s su bject t o t he
sa me qualif

ic ation. See Gant , 18 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 66. Thu s, E.B. i s e

n ti re l y con siste n t wi th t he se presum ptions, as i

t pro vi des a cl ear exam ple of when they should be di sregarded. J.D. and Bria

nna B
. , on t he o t her hand, do not . I n J.D. , 314 Ill . App. 3d at 1109-10, four allegat ions o f un fit ne ss we r e a t iss ue : ( 1) failu r e t o mak e r ea so na ble pr o gr es s w it hin t he st at ut o ry t ime fr ame ( 75 0 I LC S 5 0/ 1( D) ( m) (West 1998)); (2) fai lure to prot ect t he ch ildr en fr o m co nd it io ns w it hin t he ir enviro nment that were injurious to thei r wel f are (7 50 IL CS 50/1(D)(g) (We st 1998 )); (3 ) f ail ure to make re ason

ab l e ef f orts to correct the c ondi

tions tha t were the b asis f

or the removal

of the m i nors (750 ILCS 50/1(D )(m

) (We st 1998 )); 2 and (4) repeatedand sub stantial negl ect of the mi

nors (750No. 2-- 07--0779

-9-

ILCS 50/1(D )(d) (W

est 199 8)). The tr

i al cou rt f oun d th at th e S tate had p ro ven o nly the fi

rst t wo count s. On ap pea l, t he St at e co nced ed t hat t he t rial co ur t 's finding re gar ding t he second count was error, le avi

ng onl y the reasonabl e-progress count for further consi deration. Evidence was presented
co ncer ning

even ts that o cc urre d th

roug hou t the f our- yea r pe riod f ol l owi ng the ad j udi ca ti on of negl ect. The J.D. court ruled: "The record is un

clear w hether the tri al

courtexam

i ne d e ve nts outs i deof

t he st at ut o ry t ime fr ame i n de ter m i n i n g w h eth er re sp on den

t pa re n ts made r eas ona ble pr og re ss. Bec aus e t he trial
cou rt, no t t his co ur t , ha s t he f un cti on to a ss es s wi

tne ss cre di bi l i ty an d dr aw i nf ere nc esf rom t he ev i de nc e [c i tation] , we

va ca te the tri al cou rt' s adj udi ca ti on of u nfitness and r emand wi th directions to review the ev ide nce su bmit t ed t o de t er mine r es po nd en t pa r en t s' u nfit ne ss o nly by reference to events w it hin t he st at ut or y time frame, co unt ing fro m the filing of t he dispositional order. " J.D. , 314 Ill . App. 3d at 1110. As in E.B. , t he co ur t 's hold ingin J.D. wa s b as ed upon the tri al cou rt' s a ppa ren t f ai l ure to sp ec i f y upon what it w as ba sing its dec ision and t he lack of c larit y resu lting t her efro m. Ho weve r, unlike in E.B. , t he evi dence i n th e re cord pe rtai ni ng to matte rs outs i deof

the pe riod specifi ed i n section 1(D)(m) was
re levant t o o t he ralle ga t io ns p r o pe r ly at iss ue in t he t r ial, beca use , in J.D. , t he St at e d id n o t limit it s allegat ions of

un f i tn es s to section

1(D)(m ). Particularly

, proving " substantial

ne glec t" u

nd er s ec ti on 1(D)(d) allows f

or th e c ons i de rati

on of ev i de nc e f rom a broader tim

e span. See In re D.F. , 20 1 I ll. 2d 476, 50 1 (200 2) ("In

ad dit io n, r es po nd en t de liber at ely k ep t E
. K. an d T
. K. hid de n fr o m t he ir father f or fouryea r s, du r ing wh ich she mo ve d s ev en t imes ")
. Sin ce ev ide nc e o f co nd uc t o ut sid e of th e pe riod sp ec i f i ed i n s ec ti on 1( D) ( m) w as r ele va nt t o so met hing pr o pe r ly pr o va ble at tr ia l, the m ere fact that su ch ev ide nc e w as pr es en t ed did no t su pp o r t an infe r en ce t ha t it was misused . I n E.B. , becauseNo. 2-- 07--0779

-10-

t her e wa s no t hing t hat t he t rial co ur t co uld have do ne with the e vi dence b ut m i su se i t, cl ari f i ca ti on was nec ess ary . I n J.D. , the trial court could have consi

dered evi dence pertai

ni ng to events that occurred o utside t he

sta tutory l i m i t i n r ul i ng on oth er a l l eg ati ons an d c ons i de red

ev i de nc e on l y of
ev en ts oc cur ring w ithin t he st at ut or y per iod in reso lving the lack- of- re aso nable-p ro gr ess a llegat ion. Indeed, the presum

ptions that, absen

t a contr ary i

ndication i

n the record, the trial

courtkno ws a nd followsth e l

aw an d di sreg ardsi

n com pe ten t ev i den ce m i l i tate for thi s concl

usi on. Furthermore, unl ess t he res pon de nt, asappe l l an

t, ca n p oi nt to so mething that shows that t he trial court considered incompe t ent ev

i de nc e, h e h asnot ca rr ied his burden to aff

irm ative ly show error. See Schionige r , 116 I ll. Ap p. 3d at 89 9. T his fu r t he rdis t in guish es E.B. (an d t he pr es en t ca se ) fr o m J.D. beca use t he
re spo ndent in E.B. co uld p oint to the ad m i ss i on of the ev i de nc e i tse l f asan af f i rm ati ve i nd i ca ti on that the trial court erred. Briann a B. , 334 Ill. App. 3d 651, makes the same error as J.D. In thatca se , al l eg ati ons of unfi tness under sec tion

1(D)(m ) were agai n a t is sue . Briann

a B. , 334 Ill . App. 3d at 656. Ad di t io na lly, th e S tate

h ad al l eg ed th at th e r es pon den t f ai l ed to ma i nta i n a rea son ab l e d egree

of i n terest, con

cern , or res

ponsi b i l i ty regardin g the mi nor (750 ILCS 50/1(D )(b) (We st 1998 )). Brianna B. , 334 Ill . App. 3d at 655. The trial court heard ev

ide nce concern

in g even ts "well bey ond the ninem on th cuto ff ." Brianna B. , 334 Ill . App. 3d at 6 57. Pr esumab ly , t hi s evidence was presented because it was re levant to the ground for unf itnes s contain

ed in section 1(D)(b). The Briann a B. co ur t , r elying
on J.D. , re manded t he ca se be cau se t he r eco rd was unclea r a s t o w het her t he court reli ed on evi dence fro m ou t side t he st at ut or y time frame in ru ling on t he se ct ion 1 (D )( b) all egations. Briann

a B. , 334 Ill . App. 3d at 657. Hence, li ke J.D. , Briann

a B. fai le d to acknowl edge that evidence f rom outside of the n ine -month peri

od contained i

n section 1(D)(m) i s rel evan t t o all egations b ased on other subsections. The Brianna B. court then took t he sam e step as the J.D. co ur t by

assum in g error whenNo. 2-- 07--0779

-11-

t he re co rd did no t affirmatively sho w pr op riet y. As no t ed a bove , p ro cee ding in t his mann er run s counter t o several

establ is hed pri nci ple s of appel

la te review
. Ac co r di ng ly, we declin

e to follow Briann

a B. and J.D. The i

nstant case is vi

rtuall y i dentic al to Briann a B. in a nu mber o f relevan t aspe cts . In both ca se s, th e Sta te al l eg ed unf i tne ss base d on both se cti on 1(D)(m) and s ection 1(D)(b). Both trial court s determi

ned that th e S tate h ad f ai l ed to pr ove that t he r es pe ct ive r es po nd en t s d id n o t maint ain a r ea so na ble de gre e of i nte res t, con cern , or re sp on si b i l i ty fo rt he ir c hil dren

(750 IL CS 50/1(D)(b) (West 1998)). Bot h courts heard evi dence
re gar ding even

ts that o ccurred out si de the period speci fi ed i n s ection 1(D )(m

). Nei ther court stated that it w as c ons ider ingevi dence only from withi n the statuto ry peri

od with regard to allegations un der
section 1(D)(m ). Unl ike the Briann

a B. court , we will no t pr es ume t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed simp ly bec au se it did not specifi cally state t hat, in

ruli ng on the al

le gations un

der sec t ion 1 (D )( m), it was co nsider ing evi dence only from withi n the statuto ry peri

od. Instead, we wil

l, as is the norm, presum

e that the tr ia

l courtknew and f

oll owed th e law. Se e, e.g. , Sha rp , 369 Ill . App. 3d at 278. As is al so typi cal , we will furt her pr esu me tha t , fo r t he pur pos e of resol vi ng th e se cti on 1(D )(m

) al l egati ons, th e tri al court dis regarded the evi dence tha t wa s r el evan t onl y to the al l eg ati ons mad e p urs

ua nt to s ec ti on

1(D)(b). See, e.g. , Gant , 18 I ll. Ap p. 3d at 66
. Fin ally, because respondent has n

ot dem onstrated err or, we wil l af f i rm . Schionige

r , 116 Ill . App. 3d at 899. In light o f the for ego ing, t he deci si on of the ci rcuit court o f De

Kalb Co unt y ter minating t he pa re n ta lright s o f resp ond ent is affirmed. We dismiss tha t po rt ion o f this ap pea l per t aining t o a ny al le ged error in the un

derly in g negl ect proceeding. Appeal dis mi ssed i n part; j udgme

nt aff irm ed. O' MA LL EY an d CA LL UM, J J., con cur.