FIFTH DIVISION March 21, 2008

No. 1-07- 1639 In re DESIREE O ., a Mi

nor, ) ) Appeal

from the Responden

t-Appell ee ) Cir cu it Co ur t o f ) Coo k C oun

ty (The Peo ple of the Stat e of Ill in ois, ) ) Petitioner-A

ppel lee, ) ) No. 03 JA 1137 v. ) ) Anal ynn D., ) Honorable ) Lawrence

E. Flood, Responden

t-Appell ee ) Judge Presi din g. ) (Mi gdal i a R., In terve nor-A ppel l an t)). ) ) JU STI CE O’ MA RA FR OS SA RDde l iv ered th e op in i on

of th e c our t: Interv en or Migdal

i a R., th e f orme r f oster pare nt an d m atern al gran dm other of Des i ree O ., a m inor , appe al

ed f rom orde rs of the ci rcu it court th at, f

i rs t, deni ed he r m oti on f or pl ac em en t of Desiree, and, later, denied her m ot ion to modify

or vacat e that judgment. On appeal, Migdal ia R. argues that (1) t he trial

court erroneously

bal anced the goal

of reuni fi cation wi th the natural parent agai

nst the bes t interests of the ch il d; and (2) the trial c ourt ’s “ return home” order was ag ai n st th e m an i f es t wei gh t of th e ev i de n ce . W

e a f f i rm th e j ud gm

en t of th e tr i al cou rt.1-07-1639

2 BACK GROUND Desi ree was born i

n May 2003. She was h

ospital iz ed i n Jul y 2003, an

d medic al personnel st at ed t hat her injuries we re co nsist ent wit h shak en baby syndr ome. She w as t ake n into pr ot ect ive cus tody, a

nd th e State f il ed a p eti tion f or adj udi cation of wardshi p. In Au gust 2003, the

court appoi nted the Il l inoi s De partm en t of Ch il dren an d Fa m il y Serv i ces(DCFS) as Des i

ree’ s tem porary custodian, an

d DCFS pl

aced her wi

th Mi gdal ia R. In March 2004, the court entered an adj udic ation order, whic

h f ound that Desiree was

abused an

d negl ected, t hat she h

ad suf fered phy sical abuse, that there exi sted a substanti al risk of in jury , and that Desi

ree was i n an in juri ous env ironm ent. Desi ree’s biol ogical father was

nam ed as the perpetrato r of the abuse whi le Desi ree wa s in b o t h his cu st o dy a nd t he cu st o dy o f he rmo t he r , Ana lynn D . T he fat he ralle ge dly con f es se d to the i

nci de nt a nd wa s c onv i cte d of ag gra va ted ba ttery to a m inor an d s en ten ce d to a si x- y ea r pr i son term . Ana l ynn D. w as at h

om e d uri ng the inci de nt b

ut s tate d s he

wa s u na wa re of the s ha ki ng. In Ju ne 20 04, t he co ur t made D esire e a w ar d o f the co ur t , fo und t he fat her unable a nd unf it to parent her, and found A nal yn n D. unab le to parent Desi

ree. The court also entered a perman ency order, est abl

ishi ng the goal

of Desi ree’s return hom

e to Anal yn n D. wi thin 12 mo nt hs. I n Ma y 20 05 , t he pe r man en cy g o al o f r et ur n ho me w it hin 1 2 mo nt hs w as en t er ed ; a nd in Se pt emb er 20 05 , t he pe r man en cy g o al o f r et ur n ho me w it hin 5 mo nt hs w as en t er ed . Fina lly, in May 2006, the perman

ency goal of return h

ome wi thin 5 months was entered. The order noted th at A n al yn n D. h ad pa rti ci pa ted in an d c om pl ete d rec om

m en de d s er v i ce s, th at ov

er n i gh t v i si ts ha d b ee n t ak ing pla ce an d h ad be en ap pr o pr iat e, an d t ha t Ana lynn D . ha d b ee n p ar t icip at ing in1-07-1639

3

Desi ree’s therapeuti c servi

ces. At no tim

e durin g the hi story of thi s case was a perma nen cy goal other th an

return hom e ever en tered b y the trial court. I n Au gu st 20 05 , Ana lynn D . filed he rmo t io n fo rr et ur n ho me, ha ving co mple t ed all reun i f i cation se rvi cesreque sted b

y DCF S. A l so i n A ugu st, M i gda l i a R . f il ed he r m oti on to i nte rv en e, f or s tandi ng an d re que st f

or pla cem ent, pursuant to section 1-5(2) of the Juv eni le Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/1- 5(2) (West 2004)), and section 2-408 of the C ode of Civi l Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-408 (West 2004)). The motion s tated t hat Desi ree was the vi

ctim of sh aken b aby

sy ndrome, wh

ic h caused obstacl

es and del ay s i n al l a reas of devel opmen

t. She was under the care of f our ph ysic ian s a nd r ec eiv ing se ve r al f o r ms o f t he r ap y ea ch we ek , inc lu di ng ph ysic al t he r ap y, occupat ional

therapy, speech therapy and devel opmental therapy. In her m ot ion, Migdalia R. argued that she provi ded Desi ree with a carin g and n urturing home an

d could conti

nue gi vi ng he r a h i ghe r lev el of c are th an

sh e coul d poss i bl y receive f rom h er m other A na l ynn D. The tri al

court gran ted Mi gdal i a R.’ s m otion to in terve ne und er secti on 1-5 (2)(b ) of th

e Act. In N ove mber, 200 6, t he hea rings be gan o n Analynn D.’s mot ion fo r r et ur n home a nd Migdal ia R.’s m ot ion f or placem ent. Over f

our days, si

x wi tnesses testif

ied, nam el y: Em ma Ford, the curren

t case worker; Anal

ynn D.; M i gdal i a R.; Paul

Popern i k, the f am il y coun sel or; Sara Wh i te, a soci al worker a nd r egi stered nur se; an d Dr. El

ma A ugus tin e, A na l ynn D.’s thera pi st. The testim

ony a t t rial establ ished that Anal

yn n D. succes sf

ull y c ompl eted every

servi ce required b

y D CFS i n l ess than one year and, i

n addi tion, recei ved h er hi gh sch ool dipl oma, got her driv er's l ic ense, h eld a j ob throughout the penden cy of the case, train

ed hersel f i n a second c areer1-07-1639

4

as a m edi cal trans cri be r, and rece

ive d trai ni ng a nd c ertif i cation as a ce rtif i ed n urse ’s ass i stan

t. Al though she was

not required to be in

in div idua l therapy, she sti

ll attended for her own betterment. She l

iv ed i n a l arge, one-bedroom apartmen t with a l iv in g roo m a nd a l arge kitche

n area. The f

urni shi ngs were appropria

te for Desiree , and An

al yn n D. had a l

ot of speci

al equipment and furniture for Desiree’s need s. Mo reo ver, Analyn n D. was involved with Desiree’s t her apy t hro ugho ut t he pe ndenc y of t he ca se, t ra nspo rt ed he r t o s cho ol and t her apy se ssio ns, a nd drove her to Migdal

ia R.’s house, b

rin gin g al l of Desi ree’s speci

al equi pme nt. Anal yn n D. was granted unsuperv

is ed overni

ght vi si ts with Desi

ree in Septembe

r 2005, and there was ne

ver an unu sua l inc i den t. Desi ree curren

tly spent si x n i ghtsper week wi

th h er m other. Case wo rk er Fo rd t est ifi

ed t hat t hre e- year- old Des iree ha d bee n in Migdalia R. ’s ca re and custody si nce sh e was ab out three months old and had a strong attachmen t t o Migdal

ia R. That place ment ha d bee n dee med sa fe and a ppr op riat e. Des iree a lso ha d a s t ro ng bo nd wit h Analynn D. an d k ne w t ha t sh e w as he rmo t he r . De sir ee r ec eiv ed ph ysic al t he r ap y, o cc up at io na l t he r ap y, devel opm en tal thera py an d speech

thera py , an d woul

d l i kel y ne ed th ose s ervi cesf

or a long ti

m e. The degree of del

ay in her cogni tive f unctioni ng ha d not yet been

determi ned. An al yn n D. disciplined D esire e by red irect ing her ver bally, and D esire e r esp ond ed t o t hat quit e we ll. She observed them

doing s ome of the ex

ercis es recomm

ended b y the therapis ts, such as stretchi ng, massag ing, r eac hing, c ra wling, t ur ning, a nd playing wit h spe cialized e quip ment a nd manipulat ive to ys . Anal

yn n D. was kn

owledgeab

le about the time

required f

or each exerci se. If A

nal yn n D. go t sick, her bro t her acr os s t he st re et co uld as sist in caring for Des iree. Analynn D. sa id t hat she wanted Mi

gdal ia R. to be h

er backup care pl

an. An al yn n D. too k Desi

ree for regul ar medi

cal1-07-1639

5

ch ec kup s, a nd For d never r ec ei ved a ny inf orm ati on f rom an y ph y si cian s that A

na l ynn D. w as not atte n di n g to D es i

re e’ s m ed i ca l n ee ds . F ur th er m ore , n on e of

De si re e’ s te ac h er s or

th er ap i sts expr esse d any co ncer ns t o F or d r ega rd ing Analynn D.’s car e o f Desire e. Des iree w as no t missing any the ra py sess ions, and Ana lynn D. wa s involved in her t her apy. Analynn D. d id no t have a ny con tac t wi th De si re e’ s f ath er , w h o wa s i

n a c orre cti on al center . H e n

ev er con tac ted Fo rd to r eq ue st visit at io n w it h D es ire e o rse nt an y ca r ds , gift s o rlet t er s t o De sir ee . Fo r d t es t ified t ha t it wasin D esi

ree’ s b est i

ntere st to return h

ome f ul l -tim e to An al ynn D. b eca use the v i si ts were appropri ate, A na l ynn D. coul d m eet De si ree’ s needs , an d they

were bonded. Analynn D. t est ifi

ed t hat she w ou ld maintain co nt act wit h Migda lia R. and hop ed t hat she would vi si t so t hat Desi

ree would not lose h

er stro ng attachm

ent to her grandmother. Ana ly nn D . had no contact with De si

ree’s f ather si nce 2003 an

d had no intenti

on of reestabl

ishi ng a relati onshi p with h im . Through parentin

g cl asses an

d sem in ars, she had educated hersel f about chi ld a buse, an ger and stress m

anagem ent, chi ld b ehav ior, and posi

tive di sci pli ne. In h er in div idual therapy with Dr. Augustine, they di scussed stress, her relationshi ps with Mi

gdalia R. an d Des i ree’ s f athe r, and ways to adv ocate f or Desi ree. Sh e f el t respon si bl e f or Desi ree’ s i nj ury beca use she w as u nable t o r ealize t hat Des iree w as be ing abus ed, but now was co nfident t hat she co uld t ake car e o f Desire e bec aus e she had e duc at ed he rse lf, had a big sup po rt gr ou p, and co nt inu ed t o pa r t icip at e in family t he r ap y. S he co uld t ur n t o he rfat he r , br o t he ran d s ist er fo rhe lp in carin g for Desi ree. She was also abl

e to call Migdal ia R. if she n eeded her h

el p for somethi

ng, su ch as ca r ing fo rDe sir ee fo ra lo ng we ek en d. Ana lynn D . un de r st o o d w ha t De sir ee ne ed ed , felt that De si ree trus ted her, an

d was com f ortabl e adv ocati ng f or Desi ree w ith the

serv i ce prov i ders .1-07-1639

6

When qu est ioned as t o he r d esire for place ment o f Desire e, Migda lia R. t est ifi ed t hat she wa n ted th e c our t to pl ac e D es i re e i n h er h om e a n d g iv e h er l eg al auth ori ty wi th re sp ec t to Des iree's car e. Migda lia R. t hou ght Des iree s hou ld be plac ed w ith her base d o n her co mmi t ment t o De sir ee ’s ph ysic al a nd med ica l ne ed s a nd he rab ilit y t o pr o vid e c o nsis t en t , da ily t he r ap eu t ic activ iti es i n addi tion to Desiree’s

schedul ed therapy

sessi ons. Specif

ic al ly, Migdal

ia R. had performed therapeutic acti vi ties wi th Desi ree on a four-hour cycle , three tim es each day , seven day s a week, wi

th breaks f

or naps, play

tim e and sch edul ed appoin tments. The acti

vi ties i ncl uded mas sa ge , st r et ch ing , yo ga , cr aw ling ex er cis es , ba lan cin g, sit t ing an d s t an di ng du r ing pl ay, sti m ul ati on of De si re e’ s m outh to i m pr ov e s pe ec h , s in gi

n g, d ev el opm en tal pl ay ac tiv iti eswi

th spe ci al toys , an d water a

ctivi tie s. Mi gdal i a R. thought th at An

al ynn D. was not yet mature enoug h to meet all of Desiree’s needs. The t rial testimony establi shed that Migdali a R.’s car et aking o f and ad voc acy for Des iree ha d bee n exemplar y. Migd alia R. s t at ed t hat she dis continued fam

il y the rapy wi th Dr. Augustin

e when the docto r suggested that God allowed Des i ree’ s i nj ury so that Mi gdal

i a R. a nd A na l ynn D. coul d he al thei r relati onsh

i p. Lic en se d c linica l pr o fes sio na l co un se lo rPo pe r nik t es t ified t ha t Ana lynn D . an d M igd alia R. w ere ref err ed to hi m f or th era py to res olve

som e c onf l i cts . He obs erv ed tha t the y ha d a l ac k of t ru st , lac k o f co mmunicatio n, a nd difficulty in co llabor at ing for Des iree. He no t ed a slight di f f ere nc e i n th ei r ap proa ch in te rms of De si ree ’s ca re. Mi gda l i a R . wa s a

n a ss erti ve advoc ate f or Des i ree a nd f el t that you ha

d to keep p eopl

e on th ei r toes, wh erea s A na l ynn D. was m ore respectful and def erential to ward Desi

ree’s therapi sts and serv

ic e providers a

nd f el t li ke she wa s bei ng educated by

them. Poperni

k never talked wi

th any of Desi ree’s therapi sts and ne

ver1-07-1639

7

o bse r ve d a ny o f he rt he r ap y se ss io ns. He felt Ana lynn D . an d M igd alia R. mad e p r o gr es s in t er ms of be t t er co mmunicatio n wit h eac h ot her . H e do ubt ed w het her t hey co uld d evelo p a c ollabo ra t ive pl an together f

or Desi ree’ s treatm

en t and though t the tran si

tion in th e role of he r pri mary care gi ve r f rom M i gdal i a R. to An

al ynn D. h ad s ome

wh at dera il ed the col

l ab orati ve proces s. Wh ite, a l ic ensed cl in ic al social worker and li

censed registered nurse, perform ed a socia l wo r k a ss es sme nt fo rMig da lia R . in Fe br ua r y 20 04 . Sh e fe lt t ha t so cia l wo r k s er vic es wo uld he lp Mi gd al i a R . obtai

n thin gs f rom th e c as ew ork

er f or D es i re e, an d a l so h el p h er re l ati on sh i p w ith An al yn n D. Wh ite opin ed that Migdal

ia R. provided ex

cel le nt care to Desiree and that Desi ree was happ y at he r ho me. Whit e believed Des iree ha d a s t ro ng at t achment t o M igdalia R. and opi ned th at D es i

ree wou l d h ave a

“ pre tty si gn i f i ca nt a ttac hm en t” to A na l ynn D. W hi te di d not h av e a n y con tac t wi th Mi gd al i a R . af ter Ma y 20 06 . W h ite d i d n ot prov i de

an y th er ap i esto Desi ree, did n ot assess her del ay s or pro gress, nev

er vi si ted Anal yn n D.’s h ome or in terviewed he r, and ne ve r obs erv ed A

na l ynn D. wi th De si ree. Dr. August ine, a cli

nical psychologist, test if

ied that she was im

pressed by A

naly nn D.’s strength, in

tell ige nce an d ma turity. An

al yn n D. accom

plished h er goals very qui

ckl y a nd m ade signi fi cant progress in

therapy. Dr. Augus tine e xplai ned that, when she i s asked f or her rec om m en da ti ons ab out re un i f i ca ti on, he r as se ss m en t i s b as ed ve ry he av il y on th e s af ety ri sk f or t he child, who co mes first . S he loo ked at t he pa re nt ’s ability t o s afely care for and p ro t ect t he ch il d, an d the paren t’s c oping s

ki ll s, pa tie nc e, an d unders tand

ing of the requi red s ervi cesf

or a deve lop menta lly

challenge d child. She be lieved Analynn D. p os sess ed a ll tho se q ualit ies. S he obse rve d Ana l ynn D. an d Des i ree’ s wa rm , cari ng a nd f un i ntera cti ons a nd b el i ev ed they

were ve ry1-07-1639

8

muc h bonded. Anal

yn n D. did a very

good job of di sci

pli ni ng Desi ree, putt in

g her i n a tim e out and di scussi

ng i t with her. Dr. Augusti

ne al so observed An

al yn n D. doin g exerci ses wi

th Desi ree, like st r et ch ing he r . Dr . Au gu st ine ha d n o co nc er ns o riss ue s a bo ut wh et he rAna lynn D . wo uld take goo d care of Desi

ree. Dr . Au gu st ine co nd uc t ed ab o ut five family t he r ap y se ss io ns w it h An alynn D. an d M igd alia R. She thought their rel

ationsh ip wa s characterized by

a l ot of hurt fee

li ngs, past unresol

ved is sues, and s ome an

ger, but she could tel

l that they cared about each other. She stopped providi ng f am il y the rapy af ter she recomm

ended that Desi

ree return home, but contin ued counsel in g An al yn n D. She bel

ie ved that Anal

yn n D. real iz ed how m

uch Desi ree loved her grandm ot her and w ould try to keep Mi gdal ia R. in volv ed i n Desi ree's l if e. Dr. Augustin

e bel ie ved that i t was i n D esi ree’ s b est i

ntere st to be re

turne d to the ca

re an d cus tody of

Anal ynn D. On Ja nuar y 30, 200 7, t he t rial co ur t gr ant ed Ana lynn D.’s mo t ion fo r r et ur n home a nd entered a m

odif ied dis positi on order fin

din g her f it, abl e and wi ll in g to care for Desi

ree. The trial judge to ok judi ci al notice of the f

act that t he goal

for Desi ree si nce the i ncepti on of the case h

ad been return home to her m

ot her An al yn n D. The trial

judge noted that Anal

yn n D. had taken responsi bi li ty i n he r own li fe an d had gai ned the m aturity to be a responsi

bl e m ot her f or Desiree, who had be en sp ending fo ur t o s ix days a w eek wit h Analynn D. and need ed t o c ont inue t o bo nd wi th h er m oth er . F ur th er , the tr

i al j ud ge n oted th at A n al yn n D. h ad th e c ap ac i

ty to de al wi th i ss ue s c onc ern

ing De si ree ’s se rvi ce s a nd the abil ity to com pl y wi th th e requi rem en ts of an y of Des iree’ s t re at ment ne eds . T he judg e also not ed t hat Des iree’ s fat her was t he pe rp et ra t or of t he ab use an d negl ect an d return ed De si ree h ome und er an order of protecti on, wh

i ch requi red, inter1-07-1639

9

alia , that Anal

yn n D. ensure that Desiree h ad no contact with her f

ather. The trial

judge acknowl edged Mi gdal ia R.’s exem

pla ry work i n cari ng an d advocatin

g for Desi ree, but noted, ci tin g s ec ti on s of

th e A ct, th at th e A ct d i re cte d th e c our t to act in a j us t an d s pe ed y man n er to r eu nit e fa milies wh en it wa s in t he be st int er es t o f t he mino ran d s he co uld be ca r ed fo rat ho me wi thout endan

geri ng h er heal th or sa f ety . Also o n Janu ar y 30, 200 7, t he t rial co ur t denied Migda lia R.’s mo t ion fo r p lacement and rul ed th at there

wasno j ust rea son to del ay enf orcem en t or appea

l of th e order. Th

e tri al court al so refused Mi

gdal ia R.’s request for an order grantin g her visi tation with De si

ree and h er reque st to order attend ance a t fa m il y thera py . On Ma rc h 1, 2 00 7, M

i gd al i a R . f il ed a ti m el y m oti on to v ac ate or m odi f y th e j ud gm

en t, for rehearing and f

or o ther relief

, pursuant to sections 2-1203 and 2- 1301 o f the Code (735 I LCS 5/2-1203, 2-1301 (West 2006)). The m ot ion a sked the court t o vacate or modif y i ts deni al of her re que st for place ment o f Desire e and re que st ed a re hear ing o n t he r equ est for place ment. The mot ion ar gue d t hat t he co ur t ’s r uling was aga inst t he manifest weight of t he evide nce, asse rt ing t hat it w as in De siree ’s bes t inter est t o r emain with M igdalia R. The mot ion also ar gue d t hat t he mot her ’s r ight t o c ust od y had bee n allowe d t o p re vail over Des iree’ s best inter est , a nd t hat t he de nia l o f Mig da lia R . ’s r eq ue st fo rco ur t - o r de r ed visit at io n a nd co nt inu ed pa r t icip at io n in fa mily thera py wasan ab use of d i scre tion . The tria l court den

i ed the m otion to vaca te on Ma y 15, 2007. On Ju ne 13 , 2 007 , Mig dalia R. fil ed a not ice o f app eal, spe cifyi ng t hat she w as a ppe aling the trial court ’s Jan

uary 30, 2007, deni

al of her request f

or placem ent, and May

15, 2007, deni al of h er m otion to vaca te the j udgm

en t dated J an

uary 30, 2007.1-07-1639

1 Rule 306(a)(5) provides that a party may petition the appellate court for leave to appeal from interlocutory orders of the trial court “affecting the care and custody of unemancipated minors, if the appeal of such orders is not otherwise specifically provided for elsewhere in [the supreme court rules].” 210 Ill. 2d R. 306(a)(5). 10 On ap pea l, Migd alia R. a sser t s t hat (1 ) t he t rial co ur t er re d as a mat t er of law in ret ur ning De sir ee ho me t o he rna t ur al mo t he r , giv ing un du e w eig ht t o t he go al o f r eu nific at io n o f t he ch ild wi th h er n atural m othe r an d f ai l ing to f ocu s on the be st i nte res t of the ch il d a s th e s ol e c ri teri on guidi ng the pl acem ent deci si on under the Act; and (2) the trial court ’s return hom

e order was agai ns t the m an i f est we i ght of the evi den ce. AN AL YSIS I. J urisd i cti on Fi rst, we address mul

tipl e assertions

by respondents that we la

ck j urisdi ction to consider t his a pp ea l. Anal ynn D. argu es, inter alia , th at w e l ac k j urisd i cti on b ec au se Mi gda l i a R .’ s a ppe al f rom t he de nia l o f he rr eq ue st fo rpla ce men t o f De sir ee is no t an ap pe al o f r igh t bu t , r at he r , is in terlocut ory in

nature and go verned by

Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(5) ( 210 Ill. 2d R. 306(a )(5)). 1 Ana lynn D . ar gu es , co nse qu en t ly, t ha t Mig da lia R . ’s pe t it io n fo rlea ve t o ap pe al, supp ortin g record , an d l

egal m em orand um , i f an y , shoul d ha

ve been f il ed wi th the appell ate court wi thi n f ive bus ine ss d ay s af

ter the d en i al of h er m otion f or pl acem en t, i.e. , within

fi ve busi ness days from January 30, 20 07. 2 10 Ill. 2d R. 306( b)(1) . Analy nn D. adds t hat Migdalia R.’s1-07-1639

11

m oti on f or re h ea ri n g f rom th e den i al of h er m oti on f or p l ac em en t di d n ot tol l th e req ui re m en t to fi le the notice of a

ppeal withi n the tim e l im it outli ned i n Rul e 306. See Law Off

ices of J eff ery M. Leving, Lt d. v. C ot t ing , 345 Ill . App. 3d 495, 499 (2003) (a motion f or reco nsi deration di

rected agai nst an i nterlocutory order wil

l n ot to ll the runni ng of the dea

dli ne f or fili ng an appeal under Suprem e Court Rul e 306 ). We dis ag r ee . Mig da lia R . ’s ap pe al is no t int er lo cu t o r y in na t ur e. Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 306A provi

des f or expedited appeal

procedures for “orders modi fy in g chi ld c ustody where a ch an ge of cus tody h

as been gran ted.” 21 0 Il

l . 2d R. 3 06A (a)(2). M oreover , the trial court pr op er ly ruled t hat t her e wa s no just re aso n t o d elay enfor cement or app eal o f the denial o f the mot ion fo r p lacement , be cau se it was a final judgment wher e Migd alia R.’ s st anding t o p re sent that motion was b ased on her s tatus as an i ntervenor. 210 Ill . 2d R. 304. The St at e ar gue s t hat we lac k jur isdict ion t o r eview M igdalia R. ’s ar gument s re gar ding t he trial court ’s order returning De si ree home to her m ot her bec ause Mi

gdal ia R.’s notice

of appeal sta ted th at s h e w asappe al

in g on l y f rom th e den i als of h er m oti on f or p l ac em en t an d m oti on to vacate. I n a si

mi lar vei n, the Publi

c Guardian argues that w e lack j urisdi ction because Mi gdalia R. did n ot to ll the tim e l im it to appeal ei

ther the modi

fi ed di sposition order o r the return home order by ref eren ci ng th ose order s i

n h er m otion to modi f y or vac ate. Spec i f i cal l y , the trial

court i ssu ed th

ree s epara

te orders on

Jan uary 30, 200 7: (1) a mod ifi ed d ispo sitio nal or der finding Analynn D. fit, able and willi ng t o p ar ent Des iree; (2 ) a ru ling gra nti ng A na l ynn D.’ s m oti on f or return hom e; an d (3 ) a r ul ing de ny ing Mi gda l i a R .’ s m oti on f or pl acem en t and f indi ng n o ju st reas on to del

ay enf orcem en t or appea

l of th at order.1-07-1639

12

The fil ing o f a t imely

mot ion t o va cat e a final or der t olls t he 30 -d ay per iod for fil ing t he notice of appe al . 210 Ill . 2d R. 303(a)(1). Migdal ia R.’s tim el y m ot ion to vacate, however, asked th e c our t to v ac ate

or m odi f y on l y its d en i al of h er m oti on f or p l ac em en t an d req ue st f or c ourtord ered v i si tati on an d req ui re d p ar ti ci pa ti on in f am il y th er ap y . Sh

e n ev er as ke d th e tr i al cou rt to re co nsider t he o rd er finding tha t Analynn D. w as fit, able and willi ng t o c ar e fo r D esire e, and never mentio ned t he t rial co ur t ’s r uling gr ant ing t he mot her ’s r et ur n home mo t ion. Thu s, t he Publ ic Guardian argues, Migdal

ia R.’s m ot ion to vacate did not t oll the 30-day pe

riod to appeal eithe r t he mod ifi

ed d ispo sitio nal or der or t he o rd er gr ant ing Analynn D.’s re t ur n home mo t ion. “The purpose of a

notice of appe al

is to in form the prevai

li ng party that the unsuccessf ul party has requested review of the j udgme nt complai

ned of an d is seeki ng rel ie f f rom i t.” In re F.S. , 347 Ill . App. 3d 55, 68 (2004). Supr em e Court Rule 303(b) provides that a notice of appe al “shall spec ify

t he judg ment o r p ar t t her eo f or ot her or der s ap pea led fro m and t he r elief sou ght fro m the r eviewing c ou rt .” 210 Ill. 2d R. 303 (b) (2 ). Bec aus e no t ices o f app eal ar e t o be co ns t r ue d l ibe r ally ( Da

ni el s v . And ers on , 16 2 I ll. 2d 47 , 62 ( 19 94 ) ) , t he fa ilu r e t o sp ec ify a par t icular or der in a not ice o f app eal do es no t pr eclud e o ur re view o f tha t or der “so long as t he order t hat is

speci fi ed di rectly relates b ack to t he j udgme nt or o rder from wh

ic h revi ew i s sought.” Per ry v. Mi nor , 31 9 I ll. A pp . 3d 70 3, 70 9 ( 20 01 ) . Ac co r din gly, an o r de rt ha t is no t sp ec ified in t he no t ice o f app eal is re viewable if it is a s t ep in t he pr oc edu ra l pro gr essio n leading t o t he j udgm en t spec i f i ed i n the n otice

of a ppea l . Burtell v. Fi rst Charter Service C orp. , 76 Ill . 2d 427, 435 (1 979).1-07-1639

13

In th e i n sta n t ca se , the c our

t’s m odi f i ed ord er f in di n g A n al yn n D. f it, a b l e a n d w ill in g to car e fo r D esire e wa s a st ep in t he pr oc edu ra l pro gr essio n leading t o t he judg ment t o g ra nt Analynn D.’s mot ion t o r et ur n Des iree ho me. Mo re ove r, Analynn D.’s re t ur n home mo t ion and Migda lia R.’s mo t ion fo r p lacement wer e mere ly two sides o f the same co in. By challenging t he denial of her m ot ion f or placem ent, Migda

li a R. in form ed the prevai

li ng parties that she was appeal in g the trial court ’s deci si on to remove h er as Desi ree’s f oster parent and tr ansf

er custody to Ana l ynn D. A ccordi

ngl y , Mi gdal i a R.’ s ti m el y m otion to vaca te an d noti

ce of appe al were suf f i ci en t to conf er j uri sdi cti on upon

thi s court to revi ew h

er app eal of th e tri al court’sreturn home or der. We not e that Migdali a R. never c hall

enges in this appeal the tr ial cou rt ’s determ ina tion that A na l ynn D. was f it to care f

or Desi ree. II. Re un i f i ca ti on an d th e C h il d’ s B es t In

ter es ts Mi gda l i a R . con tends the tri al court er red as a m atter of l awby con si deri ng the goa l of
r eu nific at io n w it h t he na t ur al p ar en t inst ea d o f fo cu sing o n D es ire e’ s be st int er es t as t he so le cr iter ion g uiding it s plac ement dec ision. Migda lia R. ac kno wledg es t hat re t ur n home t o t he natural paren

t is a goal speci fi cal ly stated in the A

ct, but argues t hat if

it can be sh own that another plac em

ent for the chi

ld is i n the ch il d’s b est in

terests and speci

fi c reasons can

be i dentif ied in supp or t , t hen t hat must pr evail des pit e t he nat ur al par ent ’s su cce ssful co mplet ion o f all the se r vic es an d t as ks r eq uir ed by D CF S. T o su pp o r t t his a ss er t io n, Mig da lia R . cit es sp ec ific pr ov i si on s c on ce rn in g th e p ur pos e a n d p ol i cy of th e A ct, n am el y , th at ev er

y ch il d hasa r i gh t to serv i cesne ces sary

to her s af

ety an d proper d

ev el opm en t (705 IL CS 40 5/1-2( 3)(b ) (We st 2006 )), an d tha t “[t]he pare

nts’ ri ght to the c

ustody of th ei r ch il d shal l not prevai

l when the c ourt1-07-1639

14

deter mi nes that it is contrar y to t he heal th, safety, and best in

terest s of the chil

d” (705 I LCS 405/1-2(3)(c) (West 2006)). Moreover, Migdal ia R. cites the pref

ator y l anguage of

the best interest def ini tion wi thi n the Act (705 IL

CS 40 5/1-3(4.05) (W

est 200 6)), wh

i ch requi res th e court t o co nsid er t he list ed fac t o r s in t he co nt ex t o f t he ch ild’ s a ge an d d ev elo pme nt al n ee ds . Mig da lia R. as se rts th at D es i

re e’ s dev el opm en tal n ee ds we re b es t se rv ed b y mai n tai n in g h er pl ac em en t wi th Mi gdal i a R., even though A

na l ynn D. di d every thi ng r equi red of he r by DCF S. We set f orth the rel ev an t provi si ons of the A ct that cre ated the f

ram ework the tri al

court appl i ed i n the pres en

t case . On ce a

tria l court adj udi

catesa ch il d ab use d an d negl ected, th e court ma in tains juri sdiction over the case to conduct a disposi tional heari ng, where the court determi nes whether the par ent is f

it, wil li ng and abl

e to parent t he chi

ld. 705 ILCS 405/2 -21, 2 -22 (West 2006) . Af

ter di sposi

tion , the c ourt ma

intai nsj uri sdi cti on an d m ay m odi f y the d i sposi tion al order, co nsis t en t ly wit h se ct io n 2

- 28 o f t he Ac t , at an y t ime u nt il t he ca se is fina lly clo se d o rt he ch ild re ache s major ity. 7 05 I LCS 405 /2 -2 3( 2) (Wes t 200 6) . S ect ion 2 -2 8 pr ovid es t hat anyone inter est ed in t he child may pet itio n t he co ur t for a cha nge in cu st od y or for t he r est or at ion o f the child t o he r p ar ent s. 7 05 I LCS 405 /2 -2 8 ( West 200 6) . I f the minor ha s bee n fou nd t o be negl ec ted or ab us ed , the c ourt c an

res tore cus tody

to the pa ren t onl y i f the m inor ca n b e c ared f or at home without endangerin g her heal th or safety, and i

f i t is i n the chi ld’s b est interest. 705 ILCS 405 /2 -2 8( 4) (Wes t 200 6) . T he co ur t must ent er an o rd er finding the par ent fit t o c ar e fo r t he minor be for e cu st od y can be r est or ed. The pr ovisio ns o f sect ion 2 -2 8( 4) co ncer ning t he restorati on of cus tody to the

paren t are pre m i sed on a p erm

anency goal of re turn h ome . Migdal ia R. in tervened i n thi s action pursuan

t t o section 1-5(2)(b) of the Act, whi ch tracks t he pr ovisio ns o f sect ion 2 -2 8( 4) . 7 05 I LCS 405 /1 -5 (2 )( b) ( West 200 6) . S ect ion 1 -5 (2 )( b)1-07-1639

15

prov i de s that i f , af ter a n a dj udi ca ti on of ab us e or n eg l ec t, a m

oti on i s m ad e to re store

cu stod y to a parent, the current foster parent may in tervene f or t he sol e purpose of requestin

g continued pl acem en t of the ch il d wi th tha t foste r parent. In re A.L. , 294 Il l . App. 3d 44 1, 448 ( 1998) . However, nothin

g in section 1-5(2) “shal

l rel ie ve the court of its responsi bi li ty, under Secti on 2- 14(a) o f thi s Act to act in a j ust and speedy man ner to reunif

y f ami li es where it is

in the best inter est s o f the minor a nd t he child ca n be ca re d fo r a t home w itho ut enda nger ing t he child's he al th or sa f ety .” 705 ILCS 405/1 -5(2)(b ) (We st 2006 ). Se cti on 2- 14 (a ) p rov

i de s th at th e S tate sh oul d a ct i n a j us t an d s pe ed y man n er to det er mine a child’s best inter est , “includ ing pr ovid ing for t he sa fet y of t he minor , * ** r eunifying f am il i es wh ere the m inor ca n b e c ared f or at h om e w ithou t enda ng eri ng the m inor ’s he al th or safet y and it is in t he bes t inter est s o f the minor, and, if reunificat ion is no t co nsist ent wit h t he heal th, safety and b est in

terests o f the m

in or, fin din g another perman

ent home for the m in or.” 705 IL CS 40 5/2-14

(We st 2006 ). The hea lth, saf ety an d in terests o f the m

in or remai n the gui din g prin ci ple when is sui ng an order of di sposi tion regar di ng th e cus tody a

nd g uardi an sh i p of a m inor wa rd. In r e Aus t in W. , 214 Ill . 2d 31, 46 (2005). The bes t interest of the chi ld is the param

ount considerati on to whi ch no othe r takespreceden

ce. In r e Aus t in W. , 21 4 I ll . 2d at 4 6. In mak in g a b es t-i n ter es ts det er minatio n, c ou rt s co nsider t he fo llowing fac t or s in the co nt ext of t he child’s a ge a nd deve lop menta l needs : ( 1) t he child’s p hysical safet y and we lfare; ( 2) t he de velop ment o f the chil d’s identity; (3) t he chil

d’s fami li al, cultur al and reli

gious backg ro und and t ies; (4) t he chil d’s sense of attachments, incl uding l ove, security, fam

il iari ty, cont in uity of af fection, and the least disrupt ive pl

acement alter native; (5) t he chil d’s wishes and long-t erm goals; (6) the child’s1-07-1639

16

co mmunity ties; ( 7) t he child’s ne ed fo r p er manence , includ ing t he nee d fo r st ability and con tinu i ty of rel ati onshi ps wi th p are nt f i gur es , si bl ing s a nd othe r re l ati ve s; (8) the

un i que ne ssof ever y fami

ly and child; (9 ) t he r isks r elat ed t o s ubst itu t e ca re ; and ( 10) t he pr efer ence s o f the pers ons a va il ab l e to care f

or the ch il d. 705 I LCS 405/1 -3(4.05 ) (We st 2006 ). Ot he rimpo r t an t co nsid er at io ns in clu de t he na t ur e a nd len gt h o f t he ch ild’ s r ela t io nsh ip wit h t he pr ese nt car et ake r a nd t he effect t hat a cha nge o f placement wo uld have upo n t he em otion al an d psy ch ologi cal wel l -be ing of the chi l d. In r e Aus t in W. , 21 4 I ll. 2 d a t 50 . No sing le f actor, howe

ve r, i s di sposi

tiv e. In r e Aus t in W. , 214 Il l . 2d at 50 .

“ Cou rts m us t rem ai n e ve r m ind f ul tha t ‘th e overr i di ng pur pos e of the Act t o which al

l other go als are subordinate is the best interest o f t he c hild invo lved .’ [C it at io n. ] E ven t he s up er io r r ight o f a
n atu ra l pa re n t m us t y i el d u n l es s i t i s i n ac cor d w ith th e b es t in ter

es ts of the ch il d. [ Ci tati ons .] U nd

er c erta in ci rcum sta nc es ‘i t i s n ot nece ssar y that t he nat ur al par ent be fo und u nfit o r be fou nd t o ha ve l eg al l y f orf ei ted hi s r i gh ts to c us tody , i

f it i s i n th e b es t inte

res t of t he child t hat he be p laced in the c ust od y of so meone ot her t han t he natural paren

t.’ [Citation].” In r e Aus t in W. , 214 Il l . 2d at 50 -51. T o su pp o r t he rco nt en t io n t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t impr o pe r ly bala nc ed t he mo t he r ’s int er es t in re gaining cu st od y against Des iree’ s hea lth, safet y or best inter est , Mig dalia R. po ints t o t he follow ing st at ement in the t rial co ur t ’s nine- pag e r uling re ad fr om t he benc h:

“Now takin

g al l that i nto considerati on, and takin g a l ook at the best i nterest criteria un

der the Juven

il e Court Act for t he ch

il d,1-07-1639

17 t he [ A]ct cer t ainly bal

ance s in favor of lo ok ing t ow ar ds first t he return home of

the chi ld to the fam

il y. But i n m aki ng that deter mi nation, I have to t ake into consideration the best interest factor, and coupli

ng those bes t interest facto rs wi th [the] un iqu en es s o f ev er y family. I ca n’t jus t pu t t his id ea l family situ at ion and balance t hat cr iter ia aga inst t hat . I have t o lo ok at t he dy na m i cs of eac h a nd e ve ry f am il y .” Revi ewi ng that statement i

n the context of the en

tire rul in g, however, the record is cl ear th at th e tr i al cou rt di d n ot gi v e u n du e w ei

gh t to the f ac t th at D es i

re e’ s n atu ra l m oth er sou gh t a chan ge i n custody. Rather, the trial court noted the general

goal of reun

if ic ation stated throughout the Act and the specifi c procedural posture of this case, where the perm

anen cy goal ha d a lwa y s b ee n r eturn hom e to A na l ynn D. The tri al court wa s a

dj udi ca ting the m othe r’ s m oti on for re t ur n home u nder sec t ion 2 -2 8( 4) of t he Act , w her e t he issue was whet her Des iree c ou ld be cared for by her mother withou t enda ngering her health or safety, and whet her it was in Desiree’s best interest t o be ret urned home. The trial court rejected any assertion that t he best in terest co nsid er at io n me an t co mpa r ing ca r et ak er sk ills t o de t er mine w hic h p er so n mo r e c lo se ly met so me ideal st anda rd . T he t rial co ur t pr op er ly utilized t he bes t inter est fact or s set for t h in the Ac t and considered the uni

queness and dy nam ic s of thi s particul

ar fam il y to determi

ne wh ether reun i f i cation wi th A na l ynn D. was in D esi ree’ s b est i

ntere st. The t rial court ’s or al ruli

ng esta blishes that it was awar e of its dut y to co nsider Desiree’s he al th, sa f ety an d be st i

ntere st, f i rst an d f orem ost, in th e con text of rul ing on the m other’ s m otion . Th e tri al court di d not im prop erl y ac cord we i gh t to An al ynn D.’ s i nte res t in r eg ai ni ng cu stod y of1-07-1639

18

he rda ug ht er . Ra t he r , t he t r ial c o ur t de t er mined t ha t r eu nific at io n w it h he rna t ur al mo t he rwa s in Desiree’s best interest and co uld be accom pli shed consis tently wi

th her health, safety

and best inte res t. Th at di sti

ncti on i s cruc i al . Sp ec i f

i c s tag es of

proc ee di ng s u nd er th e A ct f ocu s on di f f eren t i ss ue s. He

re , the i ss ue

wa s n ot wh i ch pe rm an en cy goa l wa s i n De si re e’ s bes t in ter

es t, but whether the accom

plishm ent of the return hom

e goal, whi

ch h ad previ

ously been ide ntif ied as being i n h er b est i ntere st, coul

d be ach i ev ed con si sten

tly wi th h er heal th, sa f ety an d be st i

ntere st. The t rial court cor rect ly

applied the relevant p ro visi ons o f the Act in grant ing An aly nn D.’s
m oti on f or re tur n h om e a n d d en yin g M i gd al

i a R .’ s m oti on f or p l ac em en t. III. Ret urn Home Order Ne xt , Mig da lia R . co nt en ds t he t r ial c o ur t 's r ulin g o n An alynn D. ’s mo t io n fo rr et ur n ho me was agai nst the m ani fes t weigh

t o f the ev

ide nce. She a sserts the trial

court ign ored evide

nce that De sir ee ’s sp ec ial ne ed s a s a dis ab led ch ild w o uld be be t t er sa t isfie d if s he r ema ine d in Mig da lia R.’s care. Mi

gdal ia R. argues that she cared f or and had custody of

Desi ree for m ost o f h er li fe, ev er si nc e sh e was hosp ital i zed a f ter sh e h ad b een

sh aken by he r f athe r. Cas eworke

r Ford tes ti f i ed tha t De si ree wou l d l i ke l y need ph y si ca l , occupa ti ona l an d s pe ec h th

era py f or th e re st of her lif e, and M igdalia R. ar gue s t hat she su ppo rt ed D esire e 24 hou rs a day, 7 da ys a wee k wit h a consi stent regim

en of therapeuti

c activ iti es and ex ercis e at home. Mi

gdal ia R. argues she h

as b een m ore in v ol v ed wi th De si re e’ s m ed i ca l an d th er ap euti c n

ee ds th an A n al yn n D. an d a ss er ts t ha t he rho us e w as t he lea st dis r up t ive alt er na t ive fo rDe sir ee . Mo r eo ve r , Po pe r nik , t he family therapis t, described M

igda li a R. as an a ssertiv

e advocate for Desi

ree whereas A

nal yn n D. seem ed
m ore acc omm

odating or def

eren tia l to Desi ree’ s h eal th an d se rvi ce prov i ders .1-07-1639

19

T he pr o pe rst an da r d o f pr o o f ap plic ab le t o t he t r ial c o ur t ’s be st int er es t s d et er minat io n in t he co nt ex t o f a p r o ce ed ing t o mo dify a dis po sit io na l o r de rr eg ar din g c us t o dy a nd gu ar dia nsh ip is the preponderan

ce of the evi den ce s tand ard. In r e Aus t in W. , 21 4 I ll . 2d at 5 1. T h e b es t-i n ter es ts determ ina tion i s the n revi ewed und er the man i f est we i ght of the evi den ce s tand ard. I n r e A us t in W. , 214 Ill . 2d at 51-52. A j udgme nt is agai nst the m ani fes t weigh

t o f the ev

ide nce onl y w hen an opposi te conc l usi on i s cl earl y appa ren t. In re C.N. , 196 Il

l . 2d 181 , 208 (2 001). We f in d that t he trial

court ’s j udgme

nt regardin

g the best i

nterests of Desi

ree is supported b y th e m an i f es t wei gh t of th e ev i de n ce . Th

e ev i de n ce

es tab l i sh ed th at D es i re e’ s h ea l th an d s af ety wer e no t enda nger ed by r et ur ning ho me to her mot her , w her e De siree alrea dy had be en sp ending si x ni ghts a week at her m

ot her’s h ome wi thout in ci dent. Morever, no evidence es tabli shed that Desi ree lost ground in

therapy wh

en sh e started havi

ng overni ght vi si ts with h er mother, or t hat sh e s tarte d to m

i ssm edi ca l ap poi ntm en ts a t tha t ti m e. A na l ynn D. l ived i n a l arg e, on e-b ed room apartment an

d had a l ot of therapeutic equi

pme nt for Desi

ree’s speci

al needs. A nal yn n D. arran ged h er work s chedul

e so tha t she woul d be hom e wh en Des i ree w as n ot in sch ool. Mo re ove r, Analynn D. w as invo lved wit h Des iree’ s t her apy, t ra nspo rt ed he r t o s cho ol and therapy sessions, and dro ve her to Migdalia’s R.’s house, bringi ng al l the speci al equi

pmen t so tha t De si ree wa s n ever withou

t wh at s he

need ed . Ana

l y nn D. te sti f i ed tha t sh e f el t respon si bl e f or what had ha ppe ned t o D esire e and had e duc at ed he rse lf abou t child abus e. She s t at ed t hat she was re ady t o t ake co mplet e r esp ons ibil ity for Des iree a nd had a su ppo rt syst em in place if she ne eded ass i stan ce. Other than Mi

gdal ia R., none of the wi

tnesses testif

ied in support o f h

er position tha

t De sir ee ’s r et ur n ho me t o he rmo t he rwa s n o t in D es ir ee ’s be st int er es t . On t he co nt r ar y,1-07-1639

20

caseworker Ford and Dr. Augustin e opin ed that Desiree’ s bes t interests would cl early be serv ed by her return hom

e to her mother. Al

though Desi

ree had b onded wi

th her grandm

ot her, Desi

ree knew that Anal

yn n D. was h

er mother and h

ad a strong bond wi

th her. Ford and Dr. Augusti ne, who had b ot h observed Desi ree and A nal yn n D. toget her duri

ng m any vi si ts, beli eved that An al yn n D. was ready

to assum e ful l-ti me responsi bi li ty f or Desiree. Dr. Augusti

ne not ed that De si ree an d A na l ynn D.’ s i nte racti on w as wa

rm an d c ari ng an d f ound A na l ynn D. f ul l y ca pa bl e of cari ng f or Desi ree s af el y . The tria l court f ound that Des i

ree n eeded to conti

nue that strong bon

d wi th h er m other, who had proved sh

e now had the m

aturity an d ski ll s to care for Desiree an

d attend to her speci

al need s. T he t rial co ur t ack now ledge d Migd alia R.’ s co mmi t ment t o D esire e, t heir bo nd, and t he excel le nt care she h

ad provided. The

court al so recognized the s trained rel ationsh ip b etween Mi gd al i a R . a n d A n al yn n D. , n oti n g that th ei r s tub b orn n es s c ontri

b ute d to th

ei r d ete rm in ati on to hel p Desi ree but detracted from thei r abi li ty to coo perate with each ot her. The trial

court noted Analynn D.’s unwa ver ing co mmi t ment t o D esire e, intent ion t o k eep her do or op en t o visit s by Mi gdal i a R., a nd h ope tha t Desi ree w oul d kee

p he r cl ose rel ati onsh i p wi th h er gra ndm other. The tria l court’sdeterm

ina tion that De si ree’ s sa f ety , he al th an d be st i ntere st were cons i sten t with a re

turn h ome to Ana l ynn D. was not aga ins t the m an i f est we i ght of the evi den ce. Moreover, the

re w as no e

vi de nc e to i nd i ca te th at A na l ynn D. w oul d e xc l ude Mi gda l i a R . or inter fere wit h Des iree’ s at t achment t o he r g ra ndmo t her . T he t rial co ur t app ro pr iate ly grant ed t he
m otion by Anal ynn D. f or Desi ree to return

hom e. CONCLUSION For the rea son s exp l ai

ned a bov e, w e a f f i rm the j udgm en t of the ci rcu it court of Cook1-07-1639

21

Co un t y. Af fi rmed. FITZGERA

LD SM ITH, P.J., a

nd G AL LAGHER , J., con

cur.1-07-1639

22 REPORTE R OF DECISION S - ILLINOI S APPELLATE COURT

(Front Sheet to be A

tt ached to Each Case) In re DESIREE O ., a Mi

nor, Responden

t-Appell ee (The Peo ple of the Stat e of Ill in ois, Petitioner-A

ppel lee, v. Anal ynn D., Responden

t-Appell ee (Mi gdal i a R., In terve nor-A ppel l an t)).

No. 1-07- 1639 Ap pe llat e C o ur t o f I llino is Fi rst District, FIFTH DIVISION March 21, 2008 Justi ce Marg aret O'M ara Fross ard authored the opin i on of the court: Pres i di ng J usti ce F itzgera l d Sm ith an d Justic e Gal

l agh er con cur. Ap pe al f r o m t he Cir cu it Co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. The Hon. Lawrenc e E. Flood, Judge Presi din g. COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR-APPELLANT Jam es K. Lev en, Chi cago, IL 60601 COUNSEL FOR M INOR-RESPONDENT- APPELLEE1-07-1639

23 Robert F. Harris, Cook County Publ ic Guardian , Chi

cago, IL 60612 OF COUNSEL: K

ass A . Plai

n an d Jean M . Agathen COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER-APPELLEE Richard A . Devi

ne, Cook County State's Atto rney , Chi cago, IL 60602 OF COUNSEL: Jam

es E. Fi tzgerald, Mary

Needham

and Jen ni fer Streeter COUNSEL FOR RESPOND ENT-APPELLEE Marv Rai dbard, Chi

cago, IL 60604

(USE REVERSE SI DE IF NEEDED)