2020 IL App (2d) 200183-U 

No. 2-20-0183 

Order filed July 23, 2020 

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). 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

In re P.W., a Minor ) Appeal from the Circuit Court

) of McHenry County. 

) 

) No. 18-JA-69 

) 

(The People of the State of Illinois, ) Honorable 

Petitioner-Appellee, v. Nanette W. and ) Christopher M. Harmon,

Shawn W., Respondents-Appellants.) ) Judge, Presiding. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices McLaren and Bridges concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Trial court’s finding that minor was abused was not against the manifest weight of 

the evidence. 

¶ 2 The circuit court of McHenry County found, after a 10-day hearing that included an in 

camera interview with the minor, P.W., that the minor had been sexually abused by her older 

brother, C.W. It therefore made her a ward of the court. However, the trial court also found that 

the respondents, her parents Nanette and Shawn W., were complying with services and that it was 

safe for P.W. to return home to live in the same household with her brother, as she was now 

requesting. The court awarded guardianship and custody of P.W. to her parents and closed the 
2020 IL App (2d) 200183-U 

- 2 -

case. The parents now appeal the finding that the abuse occurred, arguing that that finding was 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 P.W. was born in October 2005. Her older brother C.W. was born in August 2003. P.W.

also had another brother, B.W., who was a few years older than C.W., and an older sister. 

¶ 5 P.W.’s mother testified that she noticed a change in P.W. during the fall and winter of 2017 

that led her to contact the school counselor, who began working with P.W. P.W. was hospitalized 

for depression and suicidal thoughts in March 2018. She was released after about 10 days. 

¶ 6 On September 4, 2018, P.W. refused to leave her mother’s car when she arrived at school

and the presence of police was required to get her into the school. Once inside, P.W. told the 

school counselor that she had been sexually abused by C.W. P.W., who was 12 years old, was 

tearful and sad. She said that her parents did not know and she had not told anyone else. The last 

time the abuse occurred was in November 2017. The school counselor called the Department of 

Children and Family Services (Department) hotline to report the abuse.

¶ 7 What ensued is described in the trial court’s 44-page memorandum opinion and order dated 

September 19, 2019, which included a detailed summary of the evidence presented at the lengthy 

hearing in this case, and the trial court’s reasons for finding that P.W. more likely than not was

sexually abused by C.W. The evidence included the testimony of the following people: the school 

counselor; the Department’s child protective investigator and caseworkers who interviewed P.W. 

and her parents and brothers; a certified nurse practitioner and a medical doctor who examined 

P.W. and found physical evidence of a healed fissure in her vaginal area and who opined that it 

was suspicious of sexual penetration, and although not conclusive was highly suggestive of and 

consistent with sexual abuse; the trained forensic interviewer at the Child Advocacy Center (CAC) 
2020 IL App (2d) 200183-U 

- 3 -

who conducted two interviews of P.W.; the police detective (trained in victim-sensitive interview 

techniques) who responded to the school and later interviewed C.W.; P.W.’s therapist, who also 

saw Nanette and Shawn in some counseling sessions and during supervised visits; and Nanette, 

Shawn, and C.W. The evidence also included the videos of the CAC interviews as well as the 

anatomical charts marked by P.W. during those interviews; the therapists’ notes; the Department’s 

notes of its investigation and contacts during the case; and the trial court’s in camera interview 

with P.W. 

¶ 8 Ordinarily, we would proceed to lay out that evidence here, as the gist of the appeal is the 

respondents’ assertion that the trial court’s finding of abuse was against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. We omit our usual procedure for two reasons. First, almost all of the evidence was filed 

under seal (as was the trial court’s memorandum opinion and order), and we are reluctant to delve 

into that evidence in this public disposition any more than is necessary. Second, it is not necessary 

for us to describe the evidence of abuse in detail, because the respondents contest almost none of 

the trial court’s description of that evidence. (They point to only one factual error in the trial 

court’s recitation of the evidence contained in its memorandum opinion and order.) We therefore 

lay out here only a bare-bones account of facts relevant to the arguments raised on appeal. 

¶ 9 To the school counselor, the CAC forensic interviewer, the Department investigator, and 

her therapists, P.W. gave consistent accounts of sexual abuse by her brother C.W. (and lesser abuse 

by her brother B.W.). P.W. also stated that she felt her mother did not believe her report of the 

abuse, a statement that was consistent with Nanette’s own statements to police and therapists, 

which displayed doubt about P.W.’s veracity. P.W. stated that she did not want to live at home 

with her family and C.W. The Department arranged for her to stay at a friend’s house overnight 

and then to stay with another family friend. C.W. was charged as a juvenile with one count of 
2020 IL App (2d) 200183-U 

- 4 -

criminal sexual assault and three counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. He was subject to 

home detention that included a safety plan prohibiting him from having any contact with P.W. 

¶ 10 In October 2018, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging that P.W. 

was abused and neglected. Among other things, the State alleged that, when driving P.W. to 

counseling appointments in late September, Nanette had blamed P.W. for getting C.W. into 

trouble. After a shelter care hearing, P.W. was placed in a foster family. In her counseling sessions 

during the next couple of months, P.W. remained steadfast in her statements that the abuse 

occurred and that she did not want to return home, not even for Thanksgiving. By December, 

however, she expressed worry that C.W. was mad at her and said she missed her family. 

¶ 11 In a January 2019 counseling session, P.W. was told that her brother’s trial on the sexual 

abuse charges would be held soon and that she would have to testify. P.W. appeared stunned by 

the news. She later stated that she blamed herself for the sexual abuse and felt it was her fault for 

saying something. (However, she did not deny that the abuse occurred.) There was evidence that, 

during the period before C.W.’s trial, P.W. was told that her brothers would be sent to jail, that 

they would be required to register as sex offenders, and that their futures would be seriously 

adversely affected. P.W. was also told that, if she did not testify at C.W.’s trial, he could not be 

found guilty. The therapists’ notes from January reflect that P.W. was stressed and anxious about 

appearing in court. She was scared, and worried that she would not be able to speak in court. In 

early February 2019, P.W. was hospitalized for 10 days for suicidal behaviors. 

¶ 12 C.W.’s delinquency trial on the sexual abuse charges took place in April 2019. P.W. 

recanted her earlier account of the sexual abuse and said that nothing had happened. C.W. was 

acquitted. 
2020 IL App (2d) 200183-U 

- 5 -

¶ 13 Despite her in-court recantation, in her later counseling sessions P.W. did not say that she 

had lied about the sexual abuse. However, she also expressed a desire to go home. She expressed 

anxiety about how her family members viewed her and occasional anxiety about her safety. 

¶ 14 The trial of the petition for adjudication began in June 2019 and extended over portions of 

10 days, ending in August 2019. The evidence received by the court included expert testimony 

that the presence of a healed fissure such as the one in P.W.’s vaginal area was unusually strong 

evidence of sexual abuse; about 95% of children known to have been sexually abused did not show 

physical evidence of abuse. The healed fissure could not have been caused by a tampon or 

scratching. It could have been caused by a direct impact of sufficient force on the bar of a bicycle. 

There was no evidence of any such accident. As an expert in psychological aspects of child sexual 

abuse, P.W.’s therapist testified that recantation was common; 85% of known child sex abuse 

victims recanted their allegations of abuse. Also relevant to this appeal was P.W.’s partial 

recantation of her initial disclosures during the in camera interview. P.W.’s in camera description 

of what C.W. had done differed from both her initial disclosures and her later complete recantation 

during C.W.’s criminal trial. 

¶ 15 After the trial court issued its memorandum opinion and order finding that the State had 

met its burden to prove that P.W. more likely than not was abused by C.W., the respondents moved 

for reconsideration. The trial court issued another memorandum opinion and order, detailing its 

reasons for denying that motion. Accordingly, P.W. remained a ward of the court. However, the 

trial court also found that the respondents were fit, able and willing to care for and protect P.W.; 

that the respondents were complying with the recommended services (individual and family

counseling); that P.W.’s health, welfare and safety would not be compromised by leaving her in 
2020 IL App (2d) 200183-U 

- 6 -

the home in the custody and guardianship of her parents; and that it was “no longer in the best 

interests of the minor nor the public that the case remain open.” It closed the case. 

¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 17 The respondents appeal, arguing that the trial court’s finding of abuse was against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. They argue that the finding was based on a determination that 

C.W. committed a sex offense against P.W., but the evidence did not prove that any sex offense 

had occurred. 

¶ 18 On a petition to adjudicate a minor as abused, the State bears the burden of proving the 

abuse by a preponderance of the evidence, that is, it must prove that the allegations of abuse are 

more probably true than not. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 17. In a bench trial such as the hearing 

on such a petition, the trial court sits as the trier of fact, hearing the witnesses and reviewing the 

direct presentation of the evidence, and it is in the best position to make credibility determinations 

and factual findings. In re Marriage of Matchen, 372 Ill. App. 3d 937, 946 (2007). We therefore 

will not reverse the trial court’s findings unless they are against the manifest weight of the 

evidence; that is, unless “the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the finding is arbitrary, 

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

City of Chicago, 224 Ill. 2d 530, 544 (2007); see also A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 17. 

¶ 19 As we have noted, the respondents do not contest the vast majority of the evidence 

described by the trial court in its memorandum opinion and order finding abuse. Instead, they 

argue that this evidence did not meet the State’s burden of proving the statutory requirements for 

a finding of abuse. 

¶ 20 To prove abuse as it was alleged here, the State was required to prove that a sex offense 

was committed against P.W. 705 ILCS 405/2-3(2)(iii) (West 2016). The trial court did not identify 
2020 IL App (2d) 200183-U 

- 7 -

which sex offense it found had been proven, but there are at least two likely contenders. Under 

section 11-1.60(b) of the Criminal Code of 2012 (Code), “[a] person commits aggravated criminal 

sexual abuse if that person commits an act of sexual conduct with a victim who is under 18 years 

of age and the person is a family member.” 720 ILCS 11-1.60(b) (West 2016). Alternatively, 

under section 11-1.50(b) of the Code, “[a] person commits criminal sexual abuse if that person is 

under 17 years of age and commits an act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct with a victim 

who is at least 9 years of age but under 17 years of age.” Id. § 11-1.50(b). For purposes of the 

statute, “sexual contact” is defined as “any knowing touching or fondling by the victim or the 

accused, either directly or through clothing, of the sex organs, anus, or breast of the victim or the 

accused, or any part of the body of a child under 13 years of age, *** for the purpose of sexual 

gratification or arousal of the victim or the accused.” Id. § 11-0.1. 

¶ 21 The respondents argue that, under either of these possible sex offenses, the State was 

required to prove either (1) that C.W.’s actions were for the purpose of sexual gratification of 

himself or P.W., or (2) that C.W. committed an act of penetration against P.W. They contend that 

there was no evidence of either. Accordingly, they argue, the finding of abuse cannot stand. Both 

arguments, however, rest on a selective view of the evidence. 

¶ 22 The trial court found that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that C.W. had acted 

for the purpose of sexual gratification. One item of evidence cited by the trial court in reaching 

that conclusion was C.W.’s age; the trial court stated that he was 15 years old in November 2017

(the time of the most recent incident of abuse). The trial court noted that the closer an accused is 

to the age of majority, the more plausible it is for a court to infer that the accused acted for the 

purpose of sexual gratification. What in a younger child may be innocent touching or exploration, 

in an older child is more likely to have a sexual purpose. See In re Donald R., 343 Ill. App. 3d 
2020 IL App (2d) 200183-U 

- 8 -

237, 247 (2003) (Holdridge, J., specially concurring). The respondents point out that C.W. was 

actually only 14 years old at the time of the most recent incident, not 15 as the trial court believed. 

They assert that this error by the trial court is sufficient to show that its finding of sexual 

gratification is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 23 “[T]he issue of intent of sexual gratification in minors must be determined on a case-bycase basis. There can be no bright-line test. The fact finder must consider all of the evidence, 

including the offender’s age and maturity, before deciding whether intent can be inferred.” In re 

Matthew K., 355 Ill. App. 3d 652, 656-57 (2005). In this case, C.W.’s age was not the only relevant 

evidence on the issue of whether he acted for the purpose of sexual gratification. There was 

evidence of repeated incidents of touching extending over years and physical evidence that 

suggested penetration, as well as P.W.’s statements and markings of anatomical charts that 

indicated genital-to-genital contact. Viewing the evidence in its entirety, the trial court’s finding 

that C.W. acted for the purpose of sexual gratification was not against the manifest weight of the 

evidence. 

¶ 24 Moreover, even if the basis for the trial court’s finding was weakened by its error regarding 

C.W.’s age, the evidence of sexual penetration was sufficient to sustain the finding of abuse. As 

we noted, when the accused is younger than 17 years old and the victim is between the ages of 9 

and 17, the offense of criminal sexual abuse requires proof only of either sexual penetration or

conduct undertaken for the purpose of sexual gratification, not both. See 720 ILCS 11-1.50(b) 

(West 2016). Thus, the necessary proof that a sex offense was committed could be met by evidence 

of sexual penetration, even without any evidence of sexual gratification. (And as the State notes, 

when a sex offense involves an act of penetration, the purpose of sexual gratification can be 
2020 IL App (2d) 200183-U 

- 9 -

inferred. See People v. Kolton, 219 Ill. 2d 365, 370 (2006) (acts of sexual penetration are 

inherently sexual in nature and can be neither inadvertent nor innocent)).

¶ 25 “Sexual penetration,” as defined in the Code, includes any contact, however slight, 

between the sex organ or anus of one person and the sex organ or anus of another person, or any 

intrusion, however slight, of any part of the body of one person into the sex organ or anus of 

another person. 720 ILCS 11-0.1 (West 2016). In her CAC interviews, P.W. described (verbally 

and by referring to the anatomical charts) multiple instances of such contact. She also stated that 

C.W. touched her both inside and outside her vagina and anus. Further, her physical examination 

revealed a healed fissure at the base of P.W.’s vaginal opening, which the doctor opined was the 

result of trauma and suggested sexual penetration. This evidence amply supports the trial court’s 

finding that a sex offense occurred. The respondents’ only argument on this point is that P.W. 

never stated that C.W. placed his penis in her vagina. However, as the statutory definition of 

“sexual penetration” makes clear, the State need not show that that specific type of penetration 

occurred. 

¶ 26 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 27 For the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County is affirmed. 

¶ 28 Affirmed.