SECOND DIV ISION May 27, 2008

Nos. 1-07-2991 and 1-07-3053 Consolidated

In re : TASHA L.-I., a M inor, Respondent-Appel lee (The People of th e State of Illinois, Petitioner-

Appellee,

v. Nancy L., Respondent-Appel lant, and Bruce I., Respondent-Appellan t). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) )) )) )) Appeal from the Circuit C ourt of Cook County, Illinois, Juvenile Justice and Child Protection D epartment, Child Protec

tion Div ision

Honorable Lawrence Flood, Ju dge Presidin g.

JUSTICE KARN EZIS deliv ered the opinion of the court: In this consol idated appeal, r espondents Bruce I. and Nancy L. appeal from the circuit court's order

awarding private guardianshi p of their daught er Tasha L.-I. to foster parents. On appeal , respondents r aise numerous co ntentions of error . We affirm. BACKGROUND Respondents Bruce I. and Nancy L. are Tasha L.-I.'s parents. Bruce and Nancy1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

2

were marr ied in 1992 and Tasha was born on August 20, 1994. On September 20, 2004, the State filed a petition for adj udication of wardship of Tasha, then age 10, alle ging an enviro nme nt in jurio us to her wel far e and subs tant ial ri sk of physi cal in jury, on the basis that both Bruce and Nancy had a history of alcoholism and do mestic violence. A temporary

custody hear ing order was entered the same day, and a Department of Chil dren and Family Service s (DCFS)

guardianshi p administrator , with the right to place Tasha, was appointed. The C ook County p ublic guar dian was appointed as both at

torney and g uardian ad litem for Tasha. Tasha was placed in t he custody of foster

parents, her maternal uncle a nd aunt, Glenn Y . and Linda Y. According to a stipulation of f acts, entered only for the purpo se of the tempo rary custody hear ing, Nancy admitted that on September 4, 2004, she w as too intox icated to care for Tasha and she drove while intoxicated with Tasha in the car, with Bruce's knowledg e. A permanency order, w ith a goal o f return home w ithin 12 months, was entered on March 28, 2005 . The permanency goal remained return home until August 29, 2006, when i t was chang ed to priv ate guardians hip. On Apri l 26, 2007, DC FS filed a motion to vacate guardians hip, terminate w ardship and cl ose Tasha's case. On October 18, 2007, the circuit court found that it was in Tasha's best interests to award private guardianship to the foster pa rents. On that date, the cou rt granted DCFS's motion to vac ate guardians hip, terminate w ardship, and cl ose the case. Bruce and Nancy filed separate appeals from the court's order. Their appeals wer e consolidated. August 29, 2006, Permanency H earing1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

3

At the hearing , Dr. James S cherrer tes tified that he was the progr am director of the adolescent foster

care prog ram at Catholi c Chariti es and stated that Tasha was receivi ng treatment for adjustment disor der. Her adj ustment disorder resulted from living with parents with a substance abuse problem, which created problems in T asha's adjustment and function ing. Tasha al so attended Alateen meetings, w hich helps teens cope with the effects of livi ng wit h someone wit h an alcohol abus e problem. He n oted that Tasha was also performing well i n school. Dr. Scherr

er also state d that Nancy and Bruce were receiv ing couples counseling and had recently become more respons ive to ther apy. Nancy

had been compliant w ith weekl y urine dr ops. Howe ver, in J une or July of 2006, a caseworker who spoke toNancy on t he telephone suspec ted that she had been using alco hol and an inpatient alcohol treatment pr ogram was

recommended for her. A report from the Stepping Stonesprogram in dicated that Nan cy's excessive evasiness and inconsistencies showed that she could be in denial and in need of substance abuse treatment. In Jun e 2006, Dr. Sc herrer lear ned that Nancy had been arrest ed for drivi ng under the influence (DUI) in October 2005, which Nancy had failed to disclose. In July 2006, Nancy had a psychological evaluation, which recommen ded that she should attend both indiv idual and marital counseling . The evaluati on noted that Nancy was making good progress in family ther apy. Dr. Scherr

er also state d that Bruce att ended Alcoholics Anonymous ( AA) meetings and couples coun seling and submitted to rando m urine drops. Bruce1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

4

completed an anger

management prog ram, but not the r ecommended program, and he had b een a bsen t fro m the pro gra m for sev eral mont hs. Bru ce on ly comp lete d par

t of a psycholog ical eval uation because he r efused to complete the en tire eval uation. The evaluation r

eport indicat ed that Bruce had many attribu tes of a narciss istic pers onality disorder and n oted that he blamed N ancy for the r emoval of Tasha from thei r home. On cross-ex

amination, Dr. Scherrer s tated that Bruce had been compliant w ith attending weekly AA meet ings since January 200 6. Bruce compl eted parenting classes in May 2006 . He completed 7 5 hours of intensi ve outpatient drug and alcohol treatment and completed 25 h ours of basic outpatien t follow-up treatment. Bruce and Nancy's couple s couns eling began in Ma rch 20 06, and even t hough they initi ally had som e difficulty communica ting, their level of cooperation has increased significantly. Dr. Scherrer admi tted that the recommended anger manag ement program w as in the far north suburbs, which was quite a distance from Bruce's ho me in Chicago Heights. He noted that the ang er management prog ram that Bruce a ttended was no t sufficient because it was only 12 to 18 weeks i n duration, and Bruce only attended 6 of the sessions. He further stated tha t Bruce occasionally tested positive for opiates; however , it might have been due to t he back pain medication Bruce w as taking. On redirect examination, Dr. Scherr er stated that B ruce still had not attended an inpatient alco hol treatment facil ity, w hich was one of the recommended ser vices for him. Patricia Green testified tha t she had been Nancy's Treatme nt Alternatives for a1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

5

Safer Community (TASC) recov ery coach since June 2005. She stated that s he had no concerns regarding Nancy's veracity with regard to her sobriety. She also noted that in addition to Nanc

y's DU I in 2005, Nancy had a prior D UI about five years ag o. A copy of the r

eport from the ini tial counsel ing assess ment for Bruce was admitted into ev idence. The repor t indicated that

a formal mental stat us evaluati on intervi ew could not

be conducted becaus e of Bruce's res istance and rel uctance to share personal information. Br uce's attitude was uncooper ative and i rritable and he walked out of several s essions w hen he became upset. B ruce complained that he should not have to be involved in services because the current involvement with DCFS was Nancy's responsi bility. He also in dicated that domest ic viol ence and parental substance abuse had only a mini mal impact on Tasha. A report from Tasha' s therapist w as published i n the record. It recommended that Tasha not be ret urned to her par ents' care at that time. The repor t noted that both parents needed to eng age in ongoi ng substance a buse treatment and ac cept responsibility for their role in the removal of their child. Th e report concluded that it would be extremely detrimental to return Tasha to the care of her parents prior to th ese issu es be ing ad dres sed a dequ atel y. A report from the initial counse ling assessment for Nancy noted that she should explore thedissolution of her relation ship wit h Bruce in or der to regai n custody of Tasha. The report sta ted that Nancy and Bruce were negative influences on each other, whi ch frequently led to domestic

violence.1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

6

Tasha's foster par

ents testified tha t Tasha was doi ng well at school and maintained a B average. They stated that Tasha w

as conflicted bec ause she lov ed and missed her par

ents. The guardian noted to th e court that it was very clear that Tasha did ultimately want to li ve wi th her parents. Howev er, the guar dian argued t hat the permanency goal should be chang ed from return home to private g uardianship because two years had passed since t he case had been in the system and the parents had not even progressed to the point of unsuper vised v isits. The court determin ed that the appropr iate goal w as private guardianshi p. The court stated th at a goal of ret urn home was not appropriate because neither of the parents had made subs tantial prog ress. 2007 Permanency Hearing At the hearing , the DCFS s ervice pl an of February 26, 2007, was

admitted into evidence. The plan noted that Br uce and Nancy needed mental health service s and Bruce wasdescribed ashaving an extensive history of alcohol abuse. Dr. Scherrer testified that he had a conversation with Tasha in May 2007, in which Tasha told him that she wanted to return home to her parents. She knew there

was a co nfl ict be tween her p aren ts an d her fos ter p aren ts an d hop ed th at th e two families could work together. She realized that she prob ably would not be able to return home at that time, but

it was something she w anted to do in the futur e. Dr. Scher rer agreed that themost appropria te goal for Tasha was guar dianship w ith her foster1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

7

parents because o f the likelihood of a relapse by the parents. Jennifer Gibson, a pre-do ctoral clinical psychology intern at Advocate Family Care Network, testified that she had be en providing individual therapy to Tasha since August 2006. G ibson noted that t he guardian had reported to her that Tasha wanted to return home to Tasha 's parents. Tasha indicated however, that if she could not return home, s he wo uld be comfort able l ivi ng w ith her foster parents. Tash a had so me

conc erns abou t wher e she would go to h igh sc hoo l and it was im port ant t o her to ha ve a stable liv ing envi ronment. On cross-ex

amination by Bruce's attor ney, Gibson stated that she al so provid ed individual therapy to Tasha's foster par ents, but only

with r espect to those i ssues relating to Tasha. The guardian i ntroduced a letter wri tten by Tasha i nto the record. The letter w as dated December 12, 2006, and was addressed to the court and to other s. Tasha stated in the l etter that she l iked liv ing wi th her foster par ents but she thoug ht she should live with her

parents. She g ot teased at schoo l and was asked questi ons about whether her

parents did dr ugs. She felt s he was more popular whe n she liv ed with her parent s. She ho ped tha t the rec ipients of the letter kn ew how much she wante d to go home. Former casew

orker Car

ol Murphy

testified that s he was the caseworker from October 2006 unti l the end of May 2007. She agr

eed with thedetermination t hat private g uardianship w

as the appropri ate decision.1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

8

Following the hearing, the court determined that the permanency goal should remain as private guardianship because th e parents had not mad e substantial progress in servi ces. The court acknowledg ed that Tasha wan ted to liv e with her parents but she also realiz ed that they nee ded to do more ser vices. The court noted that he found Tasha to be an "intel ligent y oung lady. " 2008 Hearing on DCFS's Motion to Vacate Guardianship, Terminate W ardship and Close the Case Caseworker Noelle O ssler testi fied that her age ncy wa s recommending that the foster parents become Tasha's legal guardians. Foster mother Linda Y. test ified that she w ould facilitate visitati on between Tasha and her parents if she became Tasha's l egal guar dian. She admitted that Tasha had expressed adesire to r eturn home to her p arents. Linda Y. also stated that neither she nor her husband w

as in any t

ype of therapy

unrelated to thi s case. She deni ed placing significant restricti ons on Tasha's contact with her parents. Foster father Gl enn Y. denied t hat he would restrict Tasha's contact w ith her parents if he became h er legal guardian. H e stated that he had done every thing possible to per mit Tasha to vi sit wi th her parents and family members . He admitted that Tasha woul d like to r eturn home if the si tuation wi th her parents improved. After the hearing , the court deter mined that it w ould be in Tasha's

best interes ts that her foster par

ents be appointed as

her legal guardians. The court stated that it had been a year- and-a-half sinc e the date of adjudica tion and the parent s had not made reasonable prog ress. The cour t noted the histor

y of domestic v iolence between the1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

1 Bruce concedesthat the cir cuit court' s determination of Tasha's best inter ests was not ag ainst the manifest w eight of the ev idence.

9 parents and als o that Nancy was an al coholic and that Bruce needed to accept responsibil ity for Tasha' s removal from their home. The court stated that it had to look out for the best in terests of Tasha, and the court acknowledged that Tasha wanted to be returned home to he r parents. However, the court found that be cause there still continued to be pr

oblems wit h the parents, r eturning Tasha home would not be a good environment for

her. The court granted DC FS' motion to vacate guardi anship, terminate wardship and cl ose the case. ANALYSIS Best Interests On appeal, Nancy

contends that the circuit court's order granting DCFS's moti on to vacate g uardianship, terminate war dship, and clos e the case was against t he manifest weig ht of the evidenc e. 1 She argues that the best interest f actors weigh in favor of finding that Tasha should l ive w ith her parents. The Juvenile Court Act of 198 7 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (W est 2006)) provides that the following factors should b e considered in determining the be st interests of the child, within the conte xt of the child's age and development al needs:

"(a) the physical safety and welfare of thechild, inc luding food, shelte r, healt h, and c lothing; (b) th e deve lopm ent o f th e chi ld's i den tity;1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

10 (c) the chi ld's backg round and ties, including familial, cult ural, and religious; (d) the ch ild's sen se of a ttachm ents, in cluding:

(i) w here the chil d actually feels love, attachment, and

a sen se of bein g value d (as oppo sed t o wher e adu lts be lieve the child shoul d feel such lov e, attachment, and a s ense of being valued); (ii) th e chi ld's s ense of se curit y; (iii) t he ch ild's sens e offam iliar ity; (iv) continuity of affection for the child; (v) the least disru ptive plac ement alternative for the child; (e) the child's wishes and long-term goals; (f) the child's community ties, including church, scho ol, and friends; (g) the c hild's need for permanence whi ch includes t he child's ne ed for stability

and continuity

of relationshi ps with pa rent figuresand with siblings and other relatives; (h) the uniq ueness of every family and chi ld; (i) the r isks attendant to entering and being in s ubstitute car e; and (j) the pr eferences of the persons availabl e to care for the child." 705 ILCS 405/1-3( 4.05) (West 2006).1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

11

Additionally, the court may consider the natu re and length of the child's relationshi p with the present careg iver and t he effect on the child' s emotional and psycholog ical wel l-being of a c hange in plac ement. In re Jaron Z. , 348 Ill. App. 3d 239, 262 (2004). A trial cour

t's determinati on of what is in a child' s best intere sts wil l not be reversed on appeal unless that determinati on is agains t the manifest w eight of the evidence. In re Marriage of Parr , 345 Ill. App. 3d 371, 376 (2003). A decision is against the manifest weight of th e evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or where the findi ngs are unr easonable, arbi trary, a nd not based upon any of the evidence. In re Marriage of Main , 361 Ill. App. 3d 983, 989 (2005)

. Specifi cally , Nanc

y fir st arg ues tha t becau se Tash a was13 ye ars ol d at thetime the case close d, and because the court found her to be a n "intellig ent young l ady," Tasha's express desire to return home to her parents should be given considerable weight. Second, Nancy argues that because both she and Bruce had made si gnificant progress in the serv ices that were provi ded to them, their home was a v iable option for Tasha's placemen t. Third, Nancy maintains that Ta sha should return home be cause Tasha's foster par

ents were not will ing to adopt Tash a. Fourth, N ancy arg ues that Tasha's physi cal, mental and emot ional wel l-being w ould be best ser

ved if Tasha was returned home becaus e Tasha missed her parents and the s eparation has had a great impact on Tasha. Furthe r, Nancy argues that the court failed to "me aningfully consider" all the appli cable factors.1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

12

In determining that it was in Tasha's best inte rest to award private guardianship to her foster par

ents, the court

noted that it had been a year- and-a-half sinc e the date of adjudication and the parents had not made reasonable pr

ogress. The court noted the history

of domestic vi olence betwe en the parents and also that Nanc y was an alcoholic and that Bruce nee ded to accept responsibility for Ta sha's removal from their home. The court stated that it had to look out for the bes t interests of Tasha, and the court acknow ledged that Tasha wanted to r eturn home to her p arents. How ever, the court found that becaus e there stil l continued to b e problems w ith the parents , returning Tasha home was not

desirable. Here, we do not find the trial court's determ ination to be against the man ifest weight of the evidence. The court w as aware of Tasha' s wish to return home to he r parents; however, the court determined t hat the parents' home was not a ppropriate because the parents

had not made reasonabl e progress . The court was concerned that if Tasha retur ned home, it would have a det rimental effect upon her development and well- being. We find it important to note that the parents had not prog ressed to the point of being al lowed to have unsupervi sed visi ts, so to ret urn Tasha to her pa rents would not be supported by the evidence. The evidence al so indicated t hat Tasha was doing we ll in her foster parents' care and wasalso doing well aca demically at school. The foster parents al so indicated t hat they w ould cooperate tofacilitate v isits betw een Tasha and her parents . We disagree with N ancy's co ntention that the t rial court did not "meaningfully" consider all the ap propriate factors. W hen considering all the factors,1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

13

we find the trial court's best interest determ ination to be supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. Evidentiary Matters Next, Nancy contends that the court excluded relevant evidence when the court sustained objec

tions to ques tions that w ould have el icited rel evant informati on. Specifically , Nancy poi nts to attempts to question cas eworker Ossler about the relationship between the parent s and foster parents, T asha's plans to be conf irmed in the Catholic faith, Tasha's iss ues over th e loss of liv ing wi th her parents, visitat ion issues and w hether the case fil e contained any concerns about the foster parents becoming guardians. Bruce contend s that the court erred in excluding evidence regarding contact between Tasha and her par ents and issuespertaining to the foster parents' fitness

. Evidentiar

y rulin gs are w ithin the sound discretion of the trial cour t and wil l not be overturned absent an abuse of dis cretion. I n r e L

. W. , 367 Ill. App. 3d 844, 857 (2006)

. Here, we find no abuse of discret ion. Each of the mat ters Nancy's and Bruce's counsel soug ht to questi on casewor ker Noelle Ossler about was either beyond the scope of Ossler's direct examination, was not relevant to the court's best interest determination or

called for spec ulation. The test imony at the he aring indi cated that Tasha was doi ng well in the foster par ents' home and that t he placement was safe and appropriate. The foster parents had no mental illne sses and w ere not recei ving any type of therapy

other than couns eling rel ated to Tasha's pl acement in their home.1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

14

Regarding the issue of the par ents' future v isitation w ith Tasha, any testimony by the caseworker would have been specul ative. F urther, the co urt repeatedly advised the parties that if the paren ts were denied reasonable visitation with Tasha, they could petition the court for visitation so the y were not without a remedy. The court heard testimony from nu merous wit nesses rega rding the bes t interest factor s and consider

ed those factors in its determinat ion to awar d private guardianshi p to the foster par ents. We f ind no abuse of disc retion in the court's exclusion of certain matters. Bruce further contends that the cou rt erred i n refusing to a llow hi s counsel to make offers of proof during the testimony of Noelle Ossl er, the foster par ents and Nancy. The purpose of an offer of proof is to disclose the nature of the ev idence offered to the trial judge and opposi ng counsel and to the rev iewing court so that it may determine wh ether the exc lusion of evi dence was er roneous. Kankakee County Board of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Board , 316 Ill. App. 3d 148, 155 (2000) . "'[A]n offer of proof is not req uired if it i s apparent that t he trial ju dge understood the nature of the objection and the character of the e vidence soug ht to be introduced or if the ques tions themselves an d the circumstances surround ing them show [ed] the purpose an d materiality

of the evidence. '" Schmitz v . Binette , 368 Ill. App. 3d 447, 454 (2006), quoting Carter v . Azaran , 332 Ill. App. 3d 948, 956 (2002)

. Here, the cour

t repeatedly

informed counsel t hat an offer of proof was unnecessary

because the informati on counsel soug ht to elicit from the witn esses was1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

15

either beyond the scope of direct examination or was not relevant to the court's best interest deter mination. Under these circ umstances, the offer of proof w as unnecessary

. W e find no abuse of discretion in the court's denial of cou nsel's requests to make off ers of proof. Bruce further ar

gues that the court's denial of his discovery req uests regar ding the mental health of the foster parents w as an abuse of discr

etion. Here, there was testimony at the hearing that the f oster parents were not in therapy other

than counseling related to Tasha' s care and both foster parents tes tified that they never had any mental health issues. The court characterized counsel's motion as a fishing expedition and noted that there was no ev idence in the r ecord that would indi cate any mental health issues with the foster parents. We f ind no abuse of discretion. Motion to Appoi nt Counsel Next, Br uce argues t hat the circu it court er red in deny ing his moti on to appoint counsel for Tasha. On May 2, 2 007, counsel for Br uce filed a motion to appoint counsel for Tasha pursuant to section 1-5(1) of th e Act (705 ILCS 405/1-5(1) (W est 2006)). The motion alleged that there was a conflict of inter est between Tas ha and the guardian beca use Tasha wanted to return home to her parents but the guardian was advocating for private guardianshi p with the foster parents. The motion further all eged that because of thisconflict, Tasha w as, in effect, w ithout her cons titutional and statutory right to counsel.1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

16

Before ruling on the motion, the court took a br ief recess to meet with Tasha. The cour t stat ed that

durin g the meeting , Tasha indic ated th at she want ed to g o home to live w ith her parents, but she als o wished her parents would partici pate in the recommended serv ices so that s he could retur n home. The court di d not ask Tasha about the guardi an's represen tation of her inter ests and Tasha did not bring t he issue to the court's at

tention. After the meeting, the co urt denied the moti on to appoint couns el for Tasha. Secti on 1-5(1) of the Act provi des that a minor who is thesubject of a proceeding pursuant to the Ac

t has the rig ht to be repres ented by couns el and that no hear ing on any petition or motion filed un der the Act may be commence d unless the minor is represented by

counsel. 705 I LCS 405/1-5(1) (West 2006). We agree with the cour t's denial of Br uce's motion to appoint counsel for Tasha and fi nd th e cas es of In re K.M.B. , 123 Ill. App. 3d 645 (1984), an d I n r e A

. W. , 248 Ill. App. 3d 971 (1993), to be instruc tive. In K.M.B. , the minor was involved in delinquency proceedingsand was r epresented by

an assistant public defender. The minor wanted to return home to live w ith her mother; however her attorney

recommended that the minor should be placed in a ju venile home. The minor asked th e court to all ow the attorney to withdraw as counsel because their interests were in conflict, the refore depriving her of her constitutional right to counsel. T he trial court denied the minor's request, and on appeal, this court affirmed. This court noted that a court-appoin ted attorney must

not only pr

otect the minor' s legal r ights but mus t also recog nize and1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

17

recommend a disposi tion in the minor 's best inter

est, even w hen the minor hims elf does not recogni ze those interests. K.M.B. 123 Ill. App. 3d at 647. The court further found that the attorney's actions were proper because she informed the cou rt of the minor's desire to re main in the mother' s home, but stated t hat it was her opinion th at the minor should be placed in a juveni le home. K.M.B. 123 Ill. App. 3d at 648. Therefore, t he court found that the at

torney's recommendation did not deprivethe minor of her constitutional right to counsel. K.M.B. 123 Ill. App. 3d at 648. In A

. W. , the minor was removed from he r home after she r eported alleg ations of

sexua l abu se, f or whic h the mino r's st epf athe r was eve ntua lly con victe d. Su bseq uen tly, the minor's counselor recommended unsupervi sed visi ts to the home after t he stepfather return ed to liveat the home, to w hich minor'spublic guar dian objected. The minor wr ote a letter tothe court infor ming the cour t that she was upset wi th the guardian'sactions and that the guardian was not adv ocating for w hat the minor w anted. The trial cour

t held a hearin g to determinewhether th e minor wanted to obtain new counsel or w hether the minor was coerced or manipulated into reques ting new counsel. After the hearing , the trial court gran ted the minor'smotion for substi tution of counsel and this court aff irmed on appeal. This cou rt noted that while a minor's right to select substitute counsel was not absolute , the minor's desire to request new counsel was a result of her ow n voliti on and the trial court's or der granti ng new counsel was appropriate. A

. W. , 248 Ill. App. 3d at 977. We f ind instruc

tive that i n each case, the mi nors brought to the court' s attention1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

18

that there was a conflict between the m inor's desires and the court-appoint ed counsel's recommendations and t hat the minors w anted new couns el to repres ent their int erests. Here, we do not find those same facts present. Tasha' s public g uardian consistently

informed the court

that Tasha wanted to return home t o her parents. Tasha also told t he court that s he wanted to r eturn home but w ished that her parents would part icipate in t he recommended serv ices so that s he could retur n home. Tasha

never ex pressed to the court that she w as unhappy w ith the guar dian's repr

esentation or that she desi red new cou nsel. We further note that the peti tion for new counsel wa s brought by

Bruce, not Tasha. We find that the circuit cour t did not err

when it den ied Bruce's peti tion for new counsel. Accordingl y, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. Affirmed. SOUTH and HALL, J .J., concur.1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

19 REPORTER OF DECISIONS - ILLINOIS APPELL ATE COURT

Nos. 1-07-2991 and 1-07-3053 Consolidated In re : TASHA L.-I., a M inor, Respondent-Appel lee (The People of th e State of Illinois, Petitioner-

Appellee, v. Nancy L., Respondent-Appel lant, and Bruce I., Respondent-Appellan t). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) )) )) Appeal from the Circuit C ourt of Cook County, Illinois, Juvenile Justice and Child Protection D epartment, Child Protec

tion Div ision

Honorable Lawrence Flood, Ju dge Presidin g.

Nos. 1-07-2991 and 1-07-3053 con solidated

Appellate Court of Illinois First Di strict, Second Divi sion May 27, 2008

JUSTICE KARN EZIS deliv ered the opinion of the court.

SOUTH and HALL, J .J., concur. Appe al fr om th e Circ uit Co urt o f Coo k Cou nty. The Honorable John A. Ward, Judge Presiding.1-07-2991 and 1-0 7-3053 consoli dated

20

For RESPONDENT-APPELLANT NANCY L., Edwin Burnette, Cook County Public Defender (Suzanne A. Isaacson, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel) For RESPONDENT-APPELLANT BRUCE I., Stephen Jaffe, Chicago, Illinois For MINOR-APPELLEE, Office of the Cook County Public Guardian, (Robert F. Harris, Kass A. Plain, Jean M. Agathen, of counsel) For PETITIONER-APPELLEE, Richard A. Devine, Cook County State's Attorney, (James E. Fitzgerald, Jennifer Streeter, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel).