2020 IL App (4th) 200372-U 

NO. 4-20-0372 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

In re J.J. and J.S., Minors 

(The People of the State of Illinois, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v. 

Filesha J., 

Respondent-Appellant). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

)

Appeal from

Circuit Court of 

Champaign County 

No. 19JA66 

Honorable 

John R. Kennedy, 

Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices DeArmond and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding (1) the trial court’s decision to make the 

minors wards of the court was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and 

its dispositional order was not an abuse of discretion and (2) the trial court did not 

err in denying respondent mother’s motion to reconsider the dispositional order. 

¶ 2 In October 2019, the State filed a petition for adjudication of neglect, alleging J.J. 

(born March 3, 2016) and J.S. (born June 28, 2018) were neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) 

of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2018)), in that their 

environment was injurious to their welfare when they resided with respondent mother, Filesha J., 

because the environment exposed the minors to substance abuse. During a January 2020 

adjudicatory hearing, respondent mother stipulated to the allegations of neglect. 

¶ 3 Following a June 2020 dispositional hearing, the trial court (1) made J.J. and J.S. 

wards of the court, (2) ordered the children remain in the custody of respondent mother, whom it 

FILED

December 23, 2020

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme 

Court Rule 23 and may not be cited 

as precedent by any party except in 

the limited circumstances allowed 

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

determined to be fit, and (3) placed guardianship with the Illinois Department of Children and 

Family Services (DCFS). Respondent father of J.J., Allen B., and respondent father of J.S., 

Donovan S., are not parties to this appeal. 

¶ 4 In July 2020, respondent mother filed a motion to reconsider the dispositional 

order. After a hearing on the motion to reconsider, the trial court denied the motion. 

¶ 5 Respondent mother appeals from the trial court’s June 2020 dispositional order

and its denial of her motion to reconsider. On appeal, respondent mother argues the trial court

(1) erred in making the children wards of the court and (2) in the alternative, erred in denying 

respondent mother’s motion to reconsider the dispositional order. 

¶ 6 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 7 A. The State’s Petition for Adjudication of Neglect 

¶ 8 In October 2019, the State filed a petition for adjudication of neglect, alleging J.J. 

and J.S. were neglected in that their environment was injurious to their welfare when they 

resided with respondent mother because the environment exposed the minors to substance abuse. 

¶ 9 B. The January 2020 Adjudicatory Hearing 

¶ 10 At a January 2020 adjudicatory hearing, respondent mother stipulated to the 

allegations of neglect. The trial court found the stipulation to be knowing, voluntary, and 

supported by a factual basis as provided by a September 7, 2019, police report. 

¶ 11 The police report alleged that on September 7, 2019, at 2:35 a.m., a police officer 

found respondent mother in a McDonald’s drive-thru lane, passed out in her vehicle with two 

small children asleep in the back seat. The police officer detected a strong odor of alcohol 

coming from respondent mother and the vehicle. The police officer also found an open and 

almost empty bottle of Patrón tequila on the front passenger floorboard of the vehicle. The 
- 3 - 

police officer called an ambulance after the officer tried several times to wake respondent mother

to no avail. An ambulance transported respondent mother to a hospital. At the hospital, 

respondent mother declined to consent to chemical testing. Police arrested respondent mother 

and transported her to jail. 

¶ 12 On January 16, 2020, the trial court entered a written adjudicatory order finding 

J.J. and J.S. neglected. 

¶ 13 C. The Dispositional Report 

¶ 14 On June 1, 2020, Bethany Christian Services (BCS) filed a dispositional report. 

The report indicated J.J. and J.S. resided with respondent mother, respondent mother was not 

currently in a romantic relationship, and respondent mother was employed full-time at AT&T. 

Respondent mother previously engaged in mental health services through Rosecrance where on 

February 25, 2020, she was successfully discharged from group therapy. Under “Substance 

Abuse History,” the report stated, 

“Filesha is currently awaiting trial for a DUI/alcohol. 

Filesha reported that she previously smoked marijuana and denies 

current use. Filesha also reported that she in the past would 

consume alcohol and go out twice a month but [sic]. 

 Filesha has been scheduled for four random drug/alcohol 

screens. Filesha failed to attend two of the scheduled random 

drug/alcohol screens. Filesha completed two random drug/alcohol 

screens that were negative for all substances and alcohol. Filesha 

successfully completed drug screens on 10-17-19 and 11-7-19, 
- 4 - 

which were both negative. She failed to appear for screens on 

11-1-19 and 11-5-19.” 

¶ 15 Under “Family Environment/Functioning/Child Rearing,” the report further 

stated, 

“Filesha has some protective abilities. Filesha is currently 

working from home due to COVID. Filesha makes sure that 

[J.J.’s] and [J.S.’s] physical needs are met. Filesha is aware of 

[J.J.’s] and [J.S.’s] nutritional needs. Filesha has been observed by 

workers to practice appropriate parenting skills. She has been 

observed to have a healthy attachment with both [J.J.] and [J.S]. 

This worker has observed many positive interactions between the 

family members. The prognosis is good due to Filesha being 

successfully discharged from substance abuse treatment, previous 

engagement in mental health services, and Filesha receiving 

domestic violence education through her mental health therapist at 

Rosecrance. Filesha is cooperative with intact worker and has 

attended scheduled appointments and is engaged with worker. 

Filesha has completed recommended services to ensure that her 

family stays intact.

Filesha has demonstrated ability to correct the conditions 

that brought her family to the notice of DCFS. Filesha has been 

cooperative with services in order to keep her family intact.” 
- 5 - 

¶ 16 The report also indicated Allen B. engaged in visitation with J.J. on the weekends 

but Allen B. had not yet engaged in services. Regarding J.J. and J.S., the report stated, 

“[J.J.] appears to be happy and healthy, due to [J.J.] only being 3 

years old most of this information was provided by his mom, 

Filesha J. [J.J.] is well behaved and social with others. He enjoys 

showing others his toys and drawings. He enjoys playing with his 

toys and interacting with his sister, J.S. [J.J.] appears to have 

reached and exceeded his developmental milestones.

* * * 

*** Due to [J.S.] being 1-year old this information was 

provided by her mother, Filesha J. [J.S.] has a very sweet and 

playful personality. She enjoys socializing with others. She 

enjoys playing with her toys and interacting with her brother, [J.J]. 

[J.S.] appears to have reached all developmental milestones.” 

¶ 17 BCS recommended, in relevant part, (1) J.J. and J.S. remain in the custody of 

respondent mother, (2) respondent mother “has completed mental-health services, but should 

continue with individual therapy in the event she needs assistance managing her mental 

health[,]” and (3) respondent mother “has cooperated with [DCFS] and/or any assigned Private 

Agency and has complied with the terms of the service plan and has corrected the conditions that 

led to intact family involvement.” 

¶ 18 On June 3, 2020, BCS filed a supplemental dispositional report reiterating the 

summarized facts and recommendations in the first dispositional report. 

¶ 19 D. The June 2020 Dispositional Hearing 
- 6 - 

¶ 20 On June 3, 2020, the trial court conducted a dispositional hearing. The court took 

into consideration the dispositional reports and heard recommendations from the parties. The 

State recommended the children remain in the custody of respondent mother but guardianship be 

granted to DCFS. In support of its recommendation, the State argued, 

“[Respondent mother] has engaged in services and appears to be 

doing very well overall. She’s been very cooperative with the 

agency. My concern with the services is there have not been a lot 

of drops, and I think those are very important in substance abuse 

cases. I think that’s—I don’t think that’s the fault of [respondent 

mother]. I know there were some done at Rosecrance when she 

was there. There were some done prior to that, but I think, due to 

the closures and due to a lot of different things, there was not 

near—I think the most recent drop was January of 2020, and I do 

have concerns about that. 

* * * 

 I am asking that guardianship be granted to [DCFS]. I do 

think there are a few things that still need to be addressed, as I’ve 

already stated. And I think it is in the minor’s best interest to have 

that guardianship just to make sure those things get done. I don’t 

anticipate any problems with the services being—the assessments 

being done and the drops being done, and I hope this is a very 

short-lived wardship, but I do think it’s necessary at this time.” 
- 7 - 

¶ 21 The guardian ad litem agreed with the State’s recommendation. Specifically, the 

guardian ad litem stated, “I agree with the State’s recommendation. Actually, with all of it.” 

Counsel for respondent mother asked the court to close the case. Specifically, counsel argued, 

 “At this point, [respondent mother] has engaged in all the 

services that were recommended of her. I know that there is— 

isn’t much there, as far as drops. And considering why this case 

came in. I know why that is a concern. However, she’s indicated 

that she has not had any kind of substance abuse issues. She hasn’t 

consumed any alcohol or taken part in drugs since this case has 

opened. She has completed her mental health counseling at 

Rosecrance and appears to be handling her mental health well and 

has clearly benefited from that service. She and [Allen B.] have 

been able to co-parent their child together without any kind of 

assistance. And I think it’s clear, based on the report, that both of 

these families have supports in the area and they’ve both been 

willing to cooperate with intact services thus far. 

 Considering the level of cooperation and engagement in 

this case. I don’t think that a wardship is appropriate here, certainly 

not that guardianship be removed. The children’s needs are being 

met and this family has been able to meet those needs. So at this 

time, I am asking for this case to close.” 

¶ 22 The trial court found it was in the best interest of the minors and the public that 

the minors be adjudicated neglected and named wards of the court. Specifically, the court 
- 8 - 

(1) made J.J. and J.S. wards of the court, (2) ordered the children remain in the custody of 

respondent mother, whom it determined to be fit, and (3) placed guardianship with DCFS. On 

June 4, 2020, the court entered a written dispositional order to that effect. 

¶ 23 E. Motion to Reconsider 

¶ 24 On July 2, 2020, respondent mother filed a motion to reconsider the dispositional 

order, alleging (1) respondent mother was successful in rectifying the conditions that led to the 

finding of neglect and (2) the ruling to grant DCFS guardianship and have the minors be made 

wards of the court was contrary to the minor’s best interests. On July 28, 2020, the trial court 

conducted a hearing on the motion to reconsider. At the hearing, respondent mother called two 

witnesses.

¶ 25 Athena Focazio-Moran, a caseworker with BCS, testified she took over J.J.’s and 

J.S.’s case within the last week. Since the entry of the dispositional order, respondent mother 

had not been referred for any additional services. Previously, respondent mother completed 

mental health counseling and substance abuse counseling. Focazio-Moran testified she was 

unable to provide new information about respondent mother’s drug screens. 

¶ 26 Respondent mother testified she successfully completed substance abuse 

counseling and mental health counseling. Since the June 3, 2020, dispositional hearing, 

respondent mother completed three or four drug screens, all of which came back negative. 

¶ 27 After presenting testimony through Focazio-Moran and respondent mother, 

counsel for respondent mother asked the trial court “to reconsider its decision on the 

dispositional order and vacate the wardship or at the very least restore guardianship to the 

parents.” Counsel for respondent father Allen B. recommended guardianship remain with DCFS 

and that the trial court retain wardship. The State recommended the dispositional order stand 
- 9 - 

where (1) more time was needed to show respondent mother fully addressed her substance abuse 

issue and (2) the parents would benefit from services to help with co-parenting. The guardian 

ad litem recommended the dispositional order remain in place because of the seriousness of the 

substance abuse issue and more time was required to ensure respondent mother had fully 

addressed the issue. 

¶ 28 The trial court denied respondent mother’s motion to reconsider the dispositional 

order. Specifically, the court stated, 

“First of all, the motion that’s brought is the motion to reconsider 

dispositional order. Reconsideration of an order asks the [c]ourt to 

measure the order as of the time that it’s entered, not as of a 

subsequent time, so evidence that relates to events that may have 

occurred post disposition really does not answer the question of 

whether the dispositional order was the appropriate one to—to 

enter. But they may relate to other issues in the case.

So what the [c]ourt really has to measure is what was the 

evidence, the law, et cetera, at the time that the dispositional order 

was entered on June 3rd, and that also does have to take into 

consideration [respondent father Allen B.’s] position, not 

elaborated on, but that from his point of view, there is merit in 

continuing guardianship and wardship, and that seems to be the 

view of the other parties as well.

 In regard to the motion to reconsider, the evidence was 

clear. I agree that although some time has passed since the event 
- 10 - 

leading to adjudication and then disposition, it was an event 

serious enough for the [c]ourt to consider awarding custody to 

[DCFS], that that was in the children’s best interests, and also 

taking into consideration the position of other parties that there 

are—in addition to [respondent mother’s] own need to treat 

substance abuse, which it looks like she’s well engaged in and 

doing well, but that parties’ position is that there is merit to other 

issues such as co-parenting issues to be resolved through 

continuing guardianship and wardship. 

So measuring the evidence and law at the time of the 

dispositional order entered, that being on June 3rd, the decision to 

find the parents fit, able and willing to exercise custody but that it 

was in the best interests of the minors to award guardianship to 

[DCFS], to continue wardship was the appropriate order. 

 So the motion to reconsider is denied. The real question is 

should the [c]ourt modify any conditions of the current order. And 

to that extent, evidence presented here today of what’s happened in 

the meantime is significant because it does look like [respondent 

mother] has continued to make significant progress. I believe her 

testimony that she’s doing well—that she’s doing well in her 

testing and that there are not a lot of other available services that 

she requires.
- 11 - 

 On the other hand. I’m not certain on this record that there 

are no other available services that the family might engage in 

because the family incudes [respondent father Allen B.], not just 

[respondent mother] and the kids. And they may be available, and 

it would be appropriate for a case agency such as [BCS] not only 

to monitor substance use but to see if there are other available 

services to facilitate family unification as best as possible. So 

there is continuing merit in guardianship still and wardship even 

though [respondent mother] is successfully treating her substance 

abuse.

 So to the extent that the [c]ourt is being asked to modify its 

prior order, that motion is denied as well.” 

¶ 29 This appeal followed.

¶ 30 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 31 Respondent mother appeals from the trial court’s June 2020 dispositional order 

and the court’s denial of her motion to reconsider. On appeal, respondent mother argues the trial 

court (1) erred in making J.J. and J.S. wards of the court and (2) in the alternative, erred in 

denying respondent mother’s motion to reconsider the dispositional order. We address these 

issues in turn.

¶ 32 A. Dispositional Order

¶ 33 Following an adjudication of neglect, the trial court must hold a dispositional 

hearing, during which “the court must first determine whether it is in the best interests of the 

minor and the public that the minor be made a ward of the court.” In re M.M., 2016 IL 119932, 
- 12 - 

¶ 17, 72 N.E.3d 260 (citing 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2), 2-22(1) (West 2012)). If the court makes the 

minor a ward of the court, the court must fashion a dispositional order that best serves the 

interest of the minor. In re Al. S., 2017 IL App (4th) 160737, ¶ 40, 73 N.E.3d 1178; see also 705 

ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2018). 

¶ 34 In fashioning a dispositional order, the overriding concern is the best interest of 

the child. In re Beatriz S., 267 Ill. App. 3d 496, 500, 641 N.E.2d 953, 956 (1994). “On review, a 

trial court’s decision ‘will be reversed only if the findings of fact are against the manifest weight 

of the evidence or the court committed an abuse of discretion by selecting an inappropriate 

dispositional order.’ ” Al. S., 2017 IL App (4th) 160737, ¶ 41 (quoting In re J.W., 386 Ill. App. 

3d 847, 856, 898 N.E.2d 803, 811 (2008)). “A court’s factual finding is against the manifest 

weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or where its finding is 

unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.” Al. S., 2017 IL App (4th) 

160737, ¶ 41. An abuse of discretion occurs when no reasonable person would agree with the 

trial court’s decision. Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 177, 797 N.E.2d 687, 

696 (2003). We afford great deference to the trial court’s findings because it is in a superior 

position to assess credibility and weigh evidence. Al. S., 2017 IL App (4th) 160737, ¶ 41. 

¶ 35 After reviewing the record, we cannot say the trial court’s findings were of a 

nature that the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or that its findings were unreasonable, 

arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. Here, the manifest weight of the evidence 

supported the court’s decision to make J.J. and J.S. wards of the court. In this matter, respondent 

mother stipulated to the allegations of neglect where she exposed J.J. and J.S. to substance abuse. 

In addition, the September 7, 2019, police report raised legitimate concerns about respondent 

mother’s ability to manage her substance abuse. 
- 13 - 

¶ 36 Respondent mother argues the trial court failed to give a justification for its 

adjudication of wardship in its dispositional order or in its oral pronouncements and the record 

offers no explanation. Respondent mother asserts the record shows she completed the requisite

services—substance abuse and mental health services, she participated in drug screens that have 

only provided negative results, and the children are happy and heathy under her care. 

¶ 37 The trial court found based on the dispositional reports and the evidence and 

recommendations provided by the parties that respondent mother needed continued services and 

time to provide additional drug drops to fully address her substance abuse problem. The State 

acknowledged respondent mother engaged in services and appeared to be doing very well but 

noted concern with the minimal number of drug screens completed. The guardian ad litem 

agreed with the State. According to the June 1, 2020, dispositional report, respondent mother 

had completed only two drug screens prior to the June 2020 dispositional hearing. 

¶ 38 We find based on the statutory best-interest factors that the evidence shows the 

trial court’s decision to make J.J. and J.S. wards of the court was appropriate. For example, in 

considering the physical safety and welfare of J.J. and J.S., the court properly determined 

wardship to be necessary in light of the evidence of respondent mother’s substance abuse and the 

limited number of drug screens completed. Notably, the dispositional order allowed J.J. and J.S.

to remain in the care of respondent mother even though the order granted DCFS guardianship of 

J.J. and J.S. 

¶ 39 In In re E.L., 353 Ill. App. 3d 894, 896, 819 N.E.2d 1191, 1193 (2004), the trial 

court, after adjudicating the children neglected, ordered the children to remain in the custody of 

the respondent mother, whom it determined was fit, but placed guardianship with DCFS. The 

Third District held, “So long as custody remains with the [parent], we can perceive no error in 
- 14 - 

also granting guardianship with DCFS.” Id. at 898. “We recognize that the court can generally 

split the guardianship and custody of a minor.” In re T.L.C., 285 Ill. App. 3d 922, 926, 675 

N.E.2d 228, 230 (1996). 

¶ 40 Here, despite respondent mother cooperating with services, the trial court’s 

decision placing guardianship with DCFS to monitor the situation and ensure respondent mother 

continued to progress best served the minors by putting in place mechanisms to ensure the 

minor’s safety and health. For these reasons, we cannot say the court’s findings, which led to its 

decision to make J.J. and J.S. wards of the court, were against the manifest weight of the 

evidence or that the court’s dispositional order was an abuse of discretion, despite the fact the 

court found respondent mother fit. See, e.g., E.L., 353 Ill. App. 3d at 898. 

¶ 41 B. Motion to Reconsider 

¶ 42 Respondent mother argues if we fail to find the trial court erred in making J.J. and 

J.S. wards of the court, then in the alternative, the trial court erred in denying respondent 

mother’s motion to reconsider the dispositional order. Specifically, respondent mother asserts 

the evidence at the hearing on the motion to reconsider, taken with the evidence at the 

dispositional hearing, established it did not serve the children’s best interest to make them wards 

of the court. We note respondent mother in her brief also refers to the motion to reconsider the 

dispositional order as a posttrial motion to modify the dispositional order. 

¶ 43 “ ‘The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to bring to the trial court’s attention 

(1) newly discovered evidence not available at the time of the hearing, (2) changes in the law, or 

(3) errors in the court’s previous application of existing law.’ ” Simmons v. Reichardt, 406 Ill. 

App. 3d 317, 324, 943 N.E.2d 752, 758 (2010) (quoting Stringer v. Packaging Corp. of America, 

351 Ill. App. 3d 1135, 1140, 815 N.E.2d 476, 481 (2004)). “When a movant seeks 
- 15 - 

reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence, ‘a party must show that the newly 

discovered evidence existed before the initial hearing but had not yet been discovered or was 

otherwise unobtainable.’ ” Id. (quoting Stringer, 351 Ill. App. 3d at 1141). “A trial court’s 

decision to grant or deny a motion to reconsider lies within its sound discretion, and this court 

will not disturb such a ruling absent an abuse of discretion.” Id. (citing Stringer, 351 Ill. App. 3d 

at 1140). 

¶ 44 Here, respondent mother failed to provide any newly discovered evidence—that 

existed at the time of the June 3, 2020, dispositional hearing—at the hearing on her motion to 

reconsider the dispositional order. Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err in denying 

respondent mother’s motion to reconsider the dispositional order where the entry of the

dispositional order was proper given the evidence presented at the dispositional hearing. 

¶ 45 To the extent respondent mother frames her motion to reconsider as a posttrial 

motion to modify the dispositional order, we look to whether respondent mother presented any 

new evidence to justify a modification of the dispositional order. At the hearing on the motion to 

reconsider, the only new evidence respondent mother presented showed since the June 3, 2020, 

dispositional hearing, she completed three or four drug screens, all of which came back negative. 

¶ 46 While the trial court determined respondent mother continued to appropriately 

address her substance abuse issue, the court found a modification of the dispositional order was 

improper where the family as a whole, including respondent father Allen B., could benefit from 

continued services. Counsel for respondent father Allen B. recommended guardianship remain 

with DCFS and that the trial court retain wardship. The State recommended the dispositional 

order stand where (1) more time was needed to show respondent mother fully addressed her 

substance abuse issue and (2) the parents would benefit from services to help with co-parenting. 
- 16 - 

The guardian ad litem recommended the dispositional order remain in place because of the 

seriousness of the substance abuse issue and more time was required to ensure respondent 

mother had fully addressed the issue. 

¶ 47 Based on the record, we find the trial court did not err in denying respondent 

mother’s motion to reconsider even when viewed as a motion to modify the dispositional order. 

¶ 48 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 49 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

¶ 50 Affirmed.