Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

In re Natalia O., 2019 IL App (2d) 181014

Appellate Court 

Caption

In re NATALIA O. and ELENA V., Minors (The People of the State 

of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Anita B., Respondent-Appellant).

District & No. Second District

Docket No. 2-18-1014

Filed April 18, 2019

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, Nos. 

17-JA-262, 17-JA-263; the Hon. Francis M. Martinez, Judge, 

presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.

Counsel on

Appeal

Gary D. McGuane, of DeKalb, for appellant.

Marilyn Hite Ross, State’s Attorney, of Rockford (Patrick Delfino, 

David J. Robinson, and Steven A. Rodgers, of State’s Attorneys 

Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

Panel JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion.

Presiding Justice Birkett and Justice Hutchinson concurred in the 

judgment and opinion.
- 2 - 

 OPINION 

¶ 1 Elena V., the daughter of the respondent, Anita B., reported in October 2016 that Anita’s 

partner, Carlos O., had touched her breasts and genitals. However, in July 2017 Elena told 

Anita that she had lied earlier and that Carlos had not touched her, and she gave testimony to 

this effect at the trial of the abuse and neglect petitions filed by the State. The trial court found 

that the State had proved allegations of abuse or neglect as to two of Anita’s three daughters. 

Anita appeals, asserting that these findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence 

and that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence. We affirm. 

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 3 We summarize here the evidence presented at the three-day trial, which included not only 

testimony by witnesses but also statements contained in various documentary exhibits, 

including the packet (indicated packet) documenting the investigation conducted by the 

Department of Children and Family Services (Department), the recording of the 

“Victim-Sensitive Interview” (VSI) of Elena conducted by a forensic interviewer at the Carrie 

Lynn Center, the records from the medical examination of Elena (MERIT records), notes from 

Elena’s sessions with her counselor, and the caseworker’s reports to the court. 

¶ 4 Anita is the mother of three girls: Ireanna B., born December 10, 2000; Elena, born August 

3, 2007; and Natalia O., born June 28, 2013. Carlos, the father of Natalia, lived with Anita and 

the girls beginning a few years before Natalia was born. At some point, Elena was diagnosed 

with a hearing impairment, and she had an individualized educational plan (IEP) at school. 

¶ 5 On October 3, 2016, one of Elena’s friends approached a cafeteria worker at their 

elementary school and said that a friend wanted to tell an adult about something. Elena, who 

was nine years old, then told the cafeteria worker that Carlos had touched her private parts. The 

cafeteria worker reported the allegations and the Department was contacted. The Department 

opened an investigation, going to the home the next day and speaking with Anita, who agreed 

to a voluntary safety plan that involved Carlos moving out of the home and not having any 

contact with the girls. (Eventually, Carlos was permitted supervised visits with Natalia.) 

¶ 6 According to the notes in the indicated packet, on October 4, 2016, Elena told the 

investigator that Carlos twice touched her “on her private parts where the bathing suit covers 

over clothing” and that “it was over her pants and shirt.” Elena said that the contact happened 

in the living room when she was watching television or in the kitchen when her mother was not 

around. She thought the last time it happened was the previous Sunday and also maybe on a 

Friday. The cafeteria worker was interviewed that same day and said that Elena had reported 

that her “stepfather” had touched her “outside of her clothes.” The cafeteria worker said that 

she had not met Elena before the day of the disclosure but that Elena had begun sticking close 

to her teachers recently. 

¶ 7 On October 19, 2016, the VSI was conducted, and Elena said that Carlos had been touching 

her. One day when she came home from school and went to the kitchen to get a drink, Carlos 

was there and asked her for a hug. He hugged her and then began touching her chest and her 

private parts. (Elena pointed to show where he touched her.) She was wearing a tank top and he 

went under her shirt. He also put his hand in her underwear and touched her “butt.” He started 

putting his hands inside and it hurt. She told him to stop but he did not. He touched her again on 
- 3 - 

a Sunday. She had gotten out of the shower and gone to her bedroom to put her pajamas on. 

Her mother and Ireanna had gone to a store. Carlos went to put Natalia to sleep and then came 

into Elena’s room and started touching her breasts and her vagina. He tried to kiss her on the 

breast, and she put her hands there to cover herself. He also tried to put his finger inside her and 

tried to hurt her. On an anatomical drawing, Elena circled the genitals. When reminded that she 

had mentioned her “butt,” Elena also circled the buttocks area. 

¶ 8 Roberto Hernandez, a Spanish-speaking child protection investigator (CPI) for the 

Department who was assigned to the case, spoke with Anita on the day of the VSI. (Anita did 

not watch or hear the VSI.) Anita said that she was “in shock” about Elena’s disclosure and did 

not know whether to believe her. Elena was jealous of Natalia, and Carlos was never alone 

with Elena because Anita was always in the home. 

¶ 9 That same day, Detective Juan Tapia of the Rockford Police Department also spoke with 

Anita. According to him, Anita thought that Elena was lying because Elena wanted her 

biological father (who had been arrested several years before and then deported to Mexico) 

back in her life. When Anita testified at trial, she denied telling Detective Tapia that she 

thought that Elena was lying. Instead, she said that she told him that she “had doubts” because 

Carlos was never home alone with any of the girls. 

¶ 10 On October 20, 2016, CPI Hernandez interviewed Ireanna, then 15 years old. Ireanna said 

that Elena had told her about Carlos touching her, but Elena laughed and did not seem serious 

when she made the disclosure and Ireanna was not sure whether to believe her. Ireanna herself 

never felt uncomfortable around Carlos; he had been good to the family and was never 

inappropriate. 

¶ 11 On October 21, 2016, Elena was given a medical examination to determine whether there 

was any physical evidence of abuse. None was found. (At trial, witnesses testified that this was 

not unusual given Elena’s description of the contact.) During the examination, Elena said that 

Carlos started touching her “over the summer months.” Once, when she was getting out of the 

shower and in her room getting dressed, Carlos came in and put his fingers in her vagina and 

touched her breasts. Another time, she was in the kitchen and Carlos asked for a hug and 

touched her under her clothes. When she said this, Elena pointed to her breast and genital areas. 

¶ 12 On November 10, 2016, Detective Tapia interviewed Carlos. They spoke in Spanish 

because Carlos was not fluent in English. Carlos was read his Miranda rights and waived them. 

Carlos said that he had lived with Anita and the girls for six or seven years. Carlos used to 

babysit Elena and Ireanna all the time when they were little, and he thought of them as his own 

daughters. However, after Natalia was born, he began working more and stopped seeing the 

girls as much. Anita stayed home with them. Carlos denied any inappropriate contact with 

Elena. He thought that Elena was jealous of Natalia and the attention she received. Elena never 

spoke to him about her biological father. Currently, Carlos was trying to see the girls and spend 

time with the family as much as possible, taking them to church on Sunday or shopping. 

However, Elena was ignoring him. 

¶ 13 In his trial testimony, Detective Tapia confirmed that he did not visit the home to look for 

any evidence, as Elena had been vague about when the abuse happened and it would be 

difficult to know what evidence could be found. He admitted that perhaps he could have 

verified certain statements by Elena (such as her description that there were no doors on the 

hinges in the home). Ultimately, Carlos was not charged with any criminal offense. 
- 4 - 

¶ 14 CPI Hernandez interviewed Carlos on November 23, 2016. Carlos denied ever touching 

Elena inappropriately and said that he was never alone with her. He worked seven days per 

week and was not home until late in the evening. He also said that Elena became jealous after 

Natalia was born. He did not mention trying to see the girls or taking the family to church or 

shopping. Carlos was currently living with a friend. He said that he was willing to engage in 

any necessary services. 

¶ 15 In February 2017, an intact-family caseworker was assigned to coordinate services for the 

family. In mid-February, CPI Hernandez interviewed Brandi Allen, a friend of Anita and 

Ireanna. Allen said that she had never seen Carlos act inappropriately and was shocked by 

Elena’s disclosure. Ireanna was at Allen’s home, and CPI Hernandez spoke with her as well. 

Ireanna confirmed her earlier statement that Elena had told her about Carlos touching her on 

one occasion. Ireanna said that at first she believed her sister, “but then it didn’t make any 

sense what she was saying” because Ireanna was always home with Elena and Carlos was 

always working and barely home. Ireanna felt safe in the home and was not afraid of anyone in 

the home. She said that Carlos had been out of the home since the previous fall and she had not 

seen him since then. 

¶ 16 Elena began attending counseling at the Carrie Lynn Center in March. The counselor’s 

notes from that spring reflected that Elena continued to say that Carlos had touched her the 

previous year. 

¶ 17 On March 10, 2017, the family and Carlos (with the caseworker’s permission) attended a 

funeral for Anita and Carlos’s son. Anita and Carlos sat together in the front of the church 

while the children stayed with others in the back. At one point, Elena ran forward, crying and 

saying that she missed Carlos. Anita pulled her away and sent her back to stay with her 

cousins, saying that she could not be around Carlos. Carlos did not say anything to Elena. 

¶ 18 In April 2017, the Department indicated Carlos for sexual abuse of Elena, based on the 

consistencies between Elena’s initial outcry and her statements in the VSI. From October 2016 

through April 2017, Elena never recanted any of her statements about the abuse. 

¶ 19 Anita testified that, in June or July 2017, Elena told Anita that she had lied and that “it 

didn’t happen.” They were at a family birthday party and went to rent a movie for the party. 

While they were on the errand, Anita scolded Elena for taking Anita’s phone and blaming it on 

Natalia. Anita told Elena that it was not okay to lie and make up stories on other people 

because they could get in trouble. According to Anita, Elena then confessed that this was not 

the only time that she lied—Carlos did not do anything to her. Anita testified that “at that point 

[she] didn’t really have any words for [Elena],” and she told Elena that there was “nothing [she 

could] really do at this point to help” Elena. They finished their errand and went home. 

According to Anita, she had never really talked with Elena about the incident other than 

immediately after Elena’s disclosure the prior October―they did not “bring it up at all.” 

¶ 20 On July 20, 2017, Elena told a caseworker that she had made up the allegations of sexual 

abuse. Asked why, Elena said that “she thought it happened, but apparently it did not.” Elena’s 

counselor advised the caseworker that, on August 14, 2017, Elena told the counselor that the 

incidents did not happen. The counselor was concerned about the recantation because the 

counselor did not believe that the word Elena used for the denial was within her vocabulary. 

¶ 21 On August 9, 2017, the State filed a petition with respect to each of Anita’s three girls. The 

petition regarding Elena alleged one count of abuse and one count of neglect for failing to 

protect her from the abuse, thereby creating an environment injurious to her well-being. The 
- 5 - 

petitions regarding Ireanna and Natalia alleged only neglect based on an injurious 

environment. 

¶ 22 Carlos completed a sexual abuse assessment, which rated him at 85% with a high risk to 

reoffend. He was referred for sex offender counseling (both individual and group sessions), 

which he attended from late July to September of 2017. Carlos’s Spanish-speaking counselor, 

Arturo Hurtado, testified that Carlos said that he had spoken with Elena on one occasion after 

her disclosure. Carlos said that he talked with Elena about “the consequences” to the family of 

her disclosure. After that, she told people that he did not do it. Carlos did not say how long ago 

the conversation had happened. However, he repeated his statements about this conversation 

during every counseling session. Carlos also said that he went to Anita’s house every day to 

pick up his tools and then to return them at the end of the day. On September 25, 2017, Carlos 

was suspended from counseling services because he continued to deny sexually abusing Elena. 

He would be allowed to return to counseling only if he completed a “denial polygraph.” Carlos 

refused to take a polygraph examination. As of the time of trial, he still had not taken one. 

¶ 23 The caseworker’s reports to the court from October 2017 through May 2018 refer to notes 

from Elena’s counselor. Throughout this period, Elena went back and forth about whether the 

sexual abuse by Carlos had actually happened. She never expressed interest in having Carlos 

return to live with the family. 

¶ 24 Trial commenced on May 10, 2018, and continued for more testimony on June 8, 2018. 

Elena was the first witness. She testified in the judge’s chambers, with the court reporter and 

the attorneys present. Elena testified that when Carlos lived in her home she was never alone 

with him. He ate dinner and watched TV with the family. He never did anything that she did 

not like or that made her feel uncomfortable. She remembered telling a school lunch lady that 

Carlos had touched her, but she could not remember what she had said about where Carlos had 

touched her. She did not remember how long ago it was. She did not tell any friends at school 

what happened. She did not remember talking with her mom about it. She remembered talking 

to the forensic interviewer and saying that Carlos had touched her private parts. 

¶ 25 However, Elena confirmed that now she was saying that he did not touch her private parts. 

Asked to explain why she said something different earlier, she said that she could not really 

explain it. She had seen a video at school when she was little that involved a mother, a 

stepfather, and a daughter, and the little girl went to live with her biological father after she 

reported sexual abuse. Elena explained that she wanted to see her biological father. He was in 

prison once and got sent to Mexico. Elena thought that she had seen his face once on TV. Elena 

also thought that she was jealous of Natalia for taking Carlos from her. She never talked to 

Carlos about her biological father. 

¶ 26 Elena said that, after Carlos moved out, she never spoke with him or saw him around the 

house or the garage. She missed him. Elena also testified that the last time she saw him was 

when she was really little and that she did not want a relationship with him. 

¶ 27 Elena testified that what she said earlier (the allegation of abuse) was not true. She had told 

her counselor, caseworkers, and lots of people that it was not true. Asked by Anita’s attorney if 

she was “trying to fix her mistake,” Elena agreed. Asked by the guardian ad litem (GAL) if she 

thought that Carlos would be able to come home if she said that the abuse did not happen, 

Elena said, “I know that I told a lie to everybody. So I’m telling the truth now.” The GAL asked 

her whether it mattered if Carlos could come home or whether she just wanted to tell the truth. 

Elena said that she “just want[ed] to tell the truth” because “I don’t want to lie by God.”
- 6 - 

¶ 28 The State called Joanna Deuth, a forensic interviewer at the Carrie Lynn Center who had 

received substantial training in recantation by child witnesses, as an expert witness. Deuth first 

addressed the issue of delay in disclosure of sexual abuse, testifying that a child’s disclosure 

might be delayed and might be accidental or unplanned when the abuser was a family member. 

Deuth then testified about recantation. She said that studies showed that between 19% and 23% 

of children who had made substantiated allegations of sexual abuse (that is, allegations that 

were independently confirmed) later recanted their allegations. Deuth said that, in “one 

specific research study” that she knew of, 257 children made substantiated allegations of 

sexual abuse and 23% of them recanted. The two primary predictors for false recantation were 

(1) a strong relationship between the child and the offender and (2) a low level of support from 

the child’s primary caregiver. Children often felt responsible for negative emotional or 

financial consequences of their disclosure on their families. Children were often aware of 

whether their mothers missed the offenders, and when that was the case, that would be 

included in the “nonsupportive caretaker” factor. A child knowing that the mother would have 

married the offender if not for the allegation was a strong predictor for recantation. When an 

allegation was substantiated, children who falsely recanted often gave vague answers for why 

they had made their initial disclosures. 

¶ 29 On cross-examination, Anita’s attorney referred to the study that Deuth cited, noting that, 

although about one-fifth of children might recant even when an allegation was substantiated, 

about four-fifths did not recant. Deuth also acknowledged that, if vague answers about why a 

child made an initial allegation could indicate that the child was falsely recanting, specific 

answers could indicate that the recantation was true. 

¶ 30 On cross-examination by Carlos’s attorney, Deuth testified that there was no correlation 

between a child’s delay in disclosing sexual abuse and whether the child was telling the truth. 

Children felt less pressure to recant if they did not know how their caregivers felt about their 

abusers. In this respect, the content of any communications between an abuser and a child, or 

between the caregiver and the child, was very important. Carlos’s attorney asked Deuth about 

the recantation study but only to confirm that she was speaking about one specific study, not 

several. (None of the parties asked Deuth to identify the study or its authors in any way. 

Similarly, there was no inquiry about any of the studies to which Deuth later referred.) 

¶ 31 The GAL asked Deuth if there were any studies about the predictors for children to make 

false allegations of sexual abuse. Deuth said no, studies showed that children tend to 

underreport sexual abuse; according to one study, only about 40% of victims reported such 

abuse. The truth or falsity of allegations had to be determined by assessing those allegations 

and the other evidence, and the level of detail was important in assessing both the initial 

disclosure and the recantation. Deuth then sought to retract her testimony that a recanting child 

giving specific reasons for the initial disclosure might indicate that the recantation was true: 

The study she cited did not suggest that but said only that vague reasons could indicate a false 

recantation. A child giving specific reasons for the initial disclosure could also be the result of 

coaching. Upon reexamination by Anita’s attorney, Deuth agreed that a child who recanted 

under oath, saying that she just wanted to tell the truth and did not want to lie to God, would be 

more credible. 

¶ 32 The State rested after calling Elena, Deuth, CPI Hernandez, Detective Tapia, and Hurtado 

as witnesses and having the exhibits admitted into evidence. Anita then presented her 

case-in-chief. Anita first sought to call Ireanna as a witness. However, it was clear that Ireanna 
- 7 - 

was highly anxious about testifying, and the GAL objected to her being called, on the ground 

that it would not be in her best interest. (The caseworker’s report to the court had noted that 

Ireanna suffered from depression and anxiety and was being treated with counseling and 

medication.) With the consent of all parties, the trial court interviewed Ireanna in chambers, 

probing only how she felt about testifying, not the content of her testimony. The trial court 

reported that it observed genuine anxiety and a “tremendous amount of trepidation” in Ireanna 

about the process and the consequences of testifying. The trial court then considered 

alternatives to her testifying directly but found none of them acceptable, and it therefore denied 

Anita’s request to call Ireanna to testify (over the objection of Anita’s attorney). 

¶ 33 Anita then testified. Anita stated that, during 2016, Elena and Carlos were never alone 

together and they were never in the house together when Anita was not there. During 2016, 

Carlos and Anita woke about 5 a.m. He would have breakfast with her and Natalia and would 

leave for work by 6 a.m., when she woke the older girls to get ready for school. He was 

working two jobs that year and did not return home from work until 9:30 or 10 p.m. Anita 

drove the older girls to school. Elena got out of school at about 2:15 p.m. and Anita would pick 

her up and drive her home. They would then go together to pick up Ireanna from school about 

3:45 p.m. Anita always had all three girls with her when she went anywhere. 

¶ 34 Anita testified about the events at the funeral in March 2017 and Elena’s recantation to her 

in the summer of 2017. Since Elena first recanted, she had never again told Anita that Carlos 

actually did touch her inappropriately. Anita asserted that, although she had been in a 

relationship with Carlos, she would not lie for him. 

¶ 35 On cross-examination, the State asked Anita about her initial conversation with Elena 

about her allegations. The discussion took place on October 4, 2016, after the Department 

investigator had finished interviewing Anita, when Elena got home from school. Anita told 

Elena that Elena could talk to her and that she was there for Elena and would keep her safe. She 

asked Elena what happened. Elena told Anita that Carlos touched her “here and there” (this 

may refer to gestures by Anita during her testimony; the transcript is not clear). But Elena 

would not look her in the face as Elena was telling her what happened, and she “had a smirk on 

her face.” Anita initially believed Elena’s disclosure. Now, a year later, she had doubts based 

on everything that had happened since then, but she did not necessarily disbelieve Elena. She 

had ended her relationship with Carlos after the disclosure. She would not definitely get back 

together with him if the petitions were dismissed; she would put her children’s interests first. 

¶ 36 Anita stated that Carlos did stop by to pick up his tools, but he went only to the garage and 

did not come into the house. When Carlos was in the garage, Anita tried to keep the girls out of 

the back room so that they would not see him. She still helped him with his business 

sometimes, taking phone messages for him and so on, but if she needed to talk to him about 

that she would go to the garage. Carlos had had no contact with the girls at all, except for the 

funeral and his supervised visits with Natalia. Anita had never told Elena that she missed 

Carlos or that she was sad that he was not living with them anymore. As far as Anita knew, 

Carlos had never talked to Elena about the disclosure. 

¶ 37 Carlos then testified through an interpreter. He had been in a relationship with Anita 

starting more than seven years ago, and had one child with her―Natalia, who was born in 

2013. He now had his own landscaping business. In 2016, he was working two jobs. He 

worked seven days per week, 10 to 17 hours per day. Before Natalia was born, he sometimes 
- 8 - 

took the older girls to school. After she was born, he never took them to school, as that was 

when he started working longer hours. 

¶ 38 He recalled talking to Hurtado during counseling sessions. When Hurtado asked about the 

incident, Carlos told him the truth—that he had never touched Elena. He was never alone with 

any of the girls and never touched them, bathed them, or put them to bed. Hurtado never asked 

him about any conversation he had with Elena after her disclosure, and Carlos denied ever 

having such a conversation. Since moving out in October 2016, he was no longer in a 

relationship with Anita and never went to the house for any reason. He did go to the garage to 

get tools. He had seen Elena only at the funeral and had never spoken to her since he moved 

out. When he lived with the family, Anita was always present in the same room with the 

children and him. She did not leave the room even to go to the bathroom; she did not need to. 

¶ 39 On October 2, 2018, the trial court delivered its decision. It began by noting that the central 

issue in the case was the two versions of events provided by Elena: her initial disclosure and 

her later recantation, including her testimony at trial. It noted that the State bore the burden of 

proving its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court then stated that it 

had reviewed the recording of the VSI, noting that Elena’s statements were “very detailed.” It 

also noted that Elena had a rapport with the interviewer and spoke freely, not hesitating to 

answer questions or equivocating. Elena had “a reasonably decent memory of specific acts” 

and “also demonstrated the alleged abuse with her hands.” Overall, the trial court found her 

statements in the VSI “quite credible.” 

¶ 40 In comparison, Elena had made statements in her recantation that did not seem credible to 

the trial court, applying the standard of what a reasonable person would find credible. For 

instance, she testified that she had never been alone with Carlos, despite the fact that he had 

been a trusted member of the household. She also said that Carlos never drove her anywhere, 

which seemed unlikely. And her explanations for her initial disclosure and for her recantation 

“simply didn’t strike the Court as credible either.” Her demeanor during her trial testimony 

was “considerably more tentative” than during the VSI. Based on its observations of Elena, the 

trial court found that the State had met its burden of proving that Carlos more likely than not 

did sexually abuse Elena. The trial court therefore found that the State had proved both counts 

of the abuse and neglect petition regarding Elena. 

¶ 41 The trial court also found that the State had proved the neglect of Natalia. It acknowledged 

that an injurious environment as to one child was not necessarily an injurious environment as 

to the other children in the home. However, in this case Natalia was very young and highly 

dependent on her caregiver to keep her safe, and thus her presence in an environment where 

abuse had occurred posed a risk that “would certainly be injurious to her welfare.” Ireanna, by 

contrast, was nearly an adult herself. Although the environment was the same, it affected each 

child differently, and given Ireanna’s greater ability to provide for her own safety, the State had 

not proven that the environment was injurious to her. The trial court therefore dismissed the 

neglect petition regarding Ireanna. 

¶ 42 Anita filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed. 

¶ 43 II. ANALYSIS 

¶ 44 Anita raises two issues on appeal. First, she argues that there was insufficient evidence to 

prove that Elena was abused (and thus that Elena and Natalia were neglected) because that 

finding was based solely on Elena’s unsworn and uncorroborated statements and it disregarded 
- 9 - 

Elena’s sworn testimony that no abuse occurred. Second, she contends that the trial court erred 

in allowing Deuth to testify regarding an unidentified study of children who had recanted 

despite substantiated allegations of abuse.1 Both of these arguments lack merit. 

¶ 45 A. Sufficiency of the Evidence 

¶ 46 Anita argues that the evidence of abuse was insufficient as a matter of law because the trial 

court’s finding rested solely on Elena’s outcry statements and the VSI. Anita points to section 

2-18(4)(c) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-18(4)(c) (West 2016)), 

which provides: 

“Previous statements made by the minor relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect 

shall be admissible in evidence. However, no such statement, if uncorroborated and not 

subject to cross-examination, shall be sufficient in itself to support a finding of abuse or 

neglect.” 

Anita argues that Elena’s statements were uncorroborated by any independent evidence (i.e., 

evidence other than the statements themselves, whether reported by Elena or other witnesses) 

and were not subject to cross-examination. Thus, she contends, those statements were 

insufficient to support the trial court’s findings of abuse and neglect.

¶ 47 In In re A.P., 179 Ill. 2d 184, 196 (1997), our supreme court explained that “[t]he 

underlying purpose of section 2-18(4)(c) is to provide a means of proving abuse or neglect in 

cases where the minor is reluctant or unable to testify.” In such a case, the minor’s statements 

may still be used to support a finding of abuse or neglect, so long as those statements are 

corroborated by some other evidence. Id. at 197. “[C]orroborating evidence” under section 

2-18(c)(4) is “independent evidence which would support a logical and reasonable inference 

that the act of abuse or neglect described in the hearsay statement occurred.” Id. at 199; see 

also In re An. W., 2014 IL App (3d) 130526, ¶ 63 (corroborating evidence “can be provided 

through circumstantial evidence, such as a medical report or examination indicating signs of 

sexual abuse, other physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, or an admission by the 

accused”). However, under the plain language of section 2-18(c)(4), the statements need not 

comply with both prongs of the statute: either (a) corroboration of the statements or (b) the 

statements being subject to cross-examination is sufficient to permit the statements to serve as 

the basis for a finding of abuse or neglect. A.P., 179 Ill. 2d at 196. 

¶ 48 Anita’s argument fails because Elena’s statements were “subject to cross-examination.” 

Elena testified at trial, she was questioned by both Anita’s and Carlos’s attorneys as well as the 

State and the GAL, and she answered all of the questions put to her. No more is required to 

show that her statements were “subject to cross-examination.” In A.P., the supreme court 

equated being “subject to cross-examination” with the act of testifying. See id. at 197 (“where 

a minor [(who made a statement)] is unable or unwilling to testify, such as where the minor is 

very young,” the minor “will not be subject to cross-examination” and corroboration thus 

 

1Anita also listed a third issue in her statement of the issues on appeal: whether her trial counsel 

provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise the first two issues. However, she included no 

discussion or analysis of this issue in her brief. Thus, it is forfeited. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Jan. 1, 

2016); People ex rel. Illinois Department of Labor v. E.R.H. Enterprises, Inc., 2013 IL 115106, ¶ 56 

(where a party does not offer any argument or meaningful authority in support of an issue, the issue is 

forfeited). 
- 10 - 

becomes important). Because Elena testified and was subject to cross-examination, her earlier 

statements did not need to be corroborated in order to serve as the basis for the findings of 

abuse and neglect. 

¶ 49 Anita argues that Elena’s outcry statements and those made during the VSI were not truly 

subject to cross-examination through her testimony because at trial she did not testify in accord 

with those statements; rather, she denied that those statements were true. Anita argues that 

section 2-18(4)(c) “implicitly requires” that the accused or the parent have the opportunity to 

cross-examine the minor about the allegations of abuse. However, there is no such requirement 

in the language of the statute, and we are not authorized to add one. People v. Patterson, 2014 

IL 115102, ¶ 49 (courts may not add provisions to those imposed by the plain language of a 

statute). Nor has Anita cited any case law to support her reading of the provision. Indeed, 

although there is not much case law on the issue, the precedent that exists is to the contrary. 

¶ 50 In An. W., 2014 IL App (3d) 130526, ¶ 64, the reviewing court rejected the interpretation of 

section 2-18(4)(c) urged by Anita here. In that case, three children initially reported that their 

father had sexually abused them. They later recanted, and at the adjudicatory hearing on the 

abuse and neglect petitions filed by the State, they testified that their prior statements had been 

lies or that they had not made those statements. The trial court nevertheless found that the 

father had abused the children. On review, the father argued that the finding violated section 

2-18(4)(c) because it was based solely on the children’s prior statements, which were not 

corroborated by any independent evidence. The reviewing court held that “corroboration was 

not required because all three of the [(alleged)] victims *** testified at the adjudicatory 

hearing.” Id. Even though the children’s testimony disavowed, rather than confirmed, their 

prior statements, they were all questioned about why they had made their prior statements, and 

both their prior statements and their recantations were subject to full inquiry by all of the 

parties. Id. Thus, the children’s prior statements were “subject to cross-examination” within 

the meaning of the statute and corroboration was not required. 

¶ 51 In this case, just as in An. W., both Elena’s prior statements and her trial testimony 

recanting those statements were available for full exploration and inquiry at trial. Because 

Elena was “subject to cross-examination” about her prior statements, they could serve as the 

basis for the trial court’s findings of abuse and neglect without the need for corroboration. 

¶ 52 Anita further argues that, even if section 2-18(4)(c) did not bar the use of Elena’s prior 

statements as the sole basis for the trial court’s findings, those statements were contradictory 

and unreliable, while Elena’s trial testimony was forthright and showed a consciousness that 

she was sworn to tell the truth. Thus, Anita argues, the trial court erred in finding Elena’s prior 

statements more credible. 

¶ 53 As Anita acknowledges, a trial court’s findings of abuse or neglect following an 

adjudicatory hearing will not be disturbed unless it is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. A.P., 179 Ill. 2d at 204. A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence 

when “the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the finding is arbitrary, unreasonable, or 

not based in evidence.” Samour, Inc. v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of 

Chicago, 224 Ill. 2d 530, 544 (2007). In considering the evidence presented at trial, we defer to 

the trial court because of its superior opportunity to “observe the demeanor of the witnesses 

while testifying, to judge their credibility[,] and to determine the weight their testimony and 

the other trial evidence should receive.” In re Estate of Bennoon, 2014 IL App (1st) 122224, 

¶ 72. Accordingly, we “may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court regarding the 
- 11 - 

credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to the evidence, or the inferences to be drawn.” 

Tully v. McLean, 409 Ill. App. 3d 659, 670-71 (2011). 

¶ 54 Anita argues that the trial court’s findings were influenced by its belief that recantation 

testimony should be viewed skeptically. During the parties’ closing arguments, the trial court 

commented that it was aware of criminal cases in which this principle had been applied, and it 

asked the attorneys if they knew whether the same principle would apply in cases under the 

Act. The State (which had not made any such argument in its closing) advised the trial court 

that it was not aware of any case law regarding the issue. The trial court then invited all of the 

attorneys to submit case law on the issue within two weeks if they desired. However, when the 

trial court announced its decision (over a month later), it made no mention of the issue. 

Accordingly, the record does not support an inference that the trial court actually viewed 

Elena’s testimony skeptically simply because it was a recantation. Further, even if the trial 

court had, Anita does not cite any authority that doing so was improper. 

¶ 55 Anita also argues that the trial court improperly focused only on the VSI when finding 

Elena’s prior statements more credible than her recantation and failed to consider the 

inconsistencies in those prior statements. For instance, Elena initially reported that Carlos had 

touched her on her breast and private parts over her clothes, but in the VSI and at the MERIT 

examination she said that Carlos had touched her under her clothes. And although Elena said in 

the VSI that Carlos had touched her “butt,” she did not circle the buttocks on the anatomical 

drawing until asked about it by the interviewer. Anita also points out that Elena’s recantation 

testimony was sworn (unlike her prior statements) and that Elena demonstrated an 

understanding of the seriousness of her obligation to tell the truth. 

¶ 56 However, the trial court was well aware of all of these points, which Anita’s and Carlos’s 

attorneys stressed during their closing arguments. Further, the trial court correctly noted that 

there were weaknesses in Elena’s trial testimony as well, such as her testimony that Carlos had 

never been alone with her (the trial court found, and we agree, that this statement strains belief 

given that Carlos was a trusted household member for years), had never driven her in a car 

(Carlos testified that he used to drive Elena and Ireanna to school and told Detective Tapia that 

he still drove them to go shopping and to church), and never spoke with her after he moved out 

(this was contradicted by his statements to his counselor). In short, although the evidence was 

conflicting, those conflicts were within the trial court’s purview to resolve and much of the 

conflicting evidence supported its finding that Elena’s recantation was not believable. The 

record thus does not permit us to conclude that the trial court’s findings were arbitrary, 

unreasonable, or not based in the evidence. See Samour, 224 Ill. 2d at 544. 

¶ 57 B. Expert Witness Reliance on an Unidentified Study 

¶ 58 Lastly, Anita argues that the trial court erred when it permitted Deuth to testify regarding a 

study of child recantation in substantiated abuse cases without identifying the study’s author or 

publication details. Anita did not raise any objection at trial regarding Deuth’s testimony about 

this study (or any other study Deuth mentioned). And on cross-examination, Anita did not ask 

Deuth about the author or publication details of the study; to the contrary, she relied on Deuth’s 

references to the study to establish various points favorable to her. Anita also referred to the 

study in her closing argument. Under these circumstances, we find that Anita actively 

acquiesced in Deuth’s references to the study, despite the lack of testimony regarding the 

study’s foundational details. We therefore will not consider her current contention that 
- 12 - 

allowing the references to the study was error. See In re Detention of Swope, 213 Ill. 2d 210, 

217 (2004) (“a party cannot complain of error *** to which that party consented”). 

¶ 59 III. CONCLUSION 

¶ 60 For the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County is affirmed. 

¶ 61 Affirmed.