## Illinois Official Reports

Appellate Court

In re L.S. , 2014 IL App (4th) 131119

Appellate Court Caption In re: L.S., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IL LINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. SHYLA STOPPELWERTH, Respond entAppellant.

District & No. Fourth District

Docket No. 4-13-1119

Filed May 16, 2014

Held

( Note: This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of

the reader. ) Respondent’s minor child was properly adjudicated n eglected and abused based on evidence that the child appeared on a live-feed webcam with respondent and respondent’s paramour wh ile being sexually abused.

Decision Under

Review Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, N o. 13-JA-4; the Hon. Steven H. Nardulli, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.

Counsel on
Appeal Sara M. Mayo (argued), of Law Offices of Sara M. Ma yo, of Springfield, for appellant.

John Milhiser, State’s Attorney, of Springfield (Pa trick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and James C. Majors (argued), al l of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel ), for the People.- 2 -

Panel JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the cou rt, with opinion. Presiding Justice Appleton and Justice Knecht concu rred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 In January 2013, the State filed a petition for ad judication of wardship pursuant to section 2-3 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (the Act) (70 5 ILCS 405/2-3 (West 2012)), alleging that L.S. (born July 26, 2009), the minor child of respo ndent, Shyla Stoppelwerth, was neglected

and abused.
¶ 2 At an October 2013 hearing on the petition, Sherif f’s Deputy Raymond Briant of Broward County, Florida, testified that while he was off du ty on a family vacation in Tennessee in December 2012, he used an application on his iPad t o watch several publicly viewable, live-feed webcams. One such webcam, listed under th e name “Shyla,” appeared to show a young boy and a female in a bed with an adult male, who was watching child pornography and masturbating. The young boy also appeared to perfor m oral sex on the male. Briant, who did not know the identity or location of the parties sh own on the Shyla webcam, reported what he saw to the National Center for Missing and Exploite d Children (NCMEC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Ireland-based priva te company that administered the webcam

service. The FBI traced the source of the webcam to a house where respondent and L.S. were living with respondent’s paramour, Craig Long.
¶ 3 At the October 2013 hearing, respondent admitted t hat she, L.S., and Long were the

persons appearing on the Shyla webcam. Over respond ent’s objection, the trial court admitted into evidence (1) Briant’s testimony about what he viewed on the Shyla webcam and (2) 12 still images automatically archived from the webcam by the company that administered the webcam service. Based primarily upon the evidence f rom the Shyla webcam, the court adjudicated L.S. abused and neglected.
¶ 4 Respondent appeals, arguing that (1) the trial cou rt erred by admitting (a) Briant’s

testimony about what he viewed on the Shyla webcam and (b) the still images captured from the webcam, and (2) the court’s adjudication of abu se and neglect was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.

¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 6 The State’s January 2013 petition alleged that L.S . was (1) neglected pursuant to section

2-3(1) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1) (West 2012)) in that his environment was injurious to his welfare, as demonstrated by his mother’s allowi ng him to be sexually abused; and (2) abused pursuant to section 2-3(2) of the Act (705 I LCS 405/2-3(2) (West 2012)) in that he was sexually abused by his mother’s paramour. That same month, the trial court entered a shelter-care order, placing L.S. in the custody of respondent’s aunt, Sheryl Stoppelwerth.- 3 - ¶ 7 Later in January 2013, Sheryl filed a petition for guardianship in the juvenile case at issue in this appeal (Sangamon County case No. 13-JA-4). In September 2013, the trial court ordered case No. 13-JA-4 consolidated with an order of prot ection case (Sangamon County case No. 13-OP-24), which Sheryl filed against respondent on behalf of L.S.

¶ 8 A. The Hearing on the State’s Petition
¶ 9 In October 2013, the trial court held a consolidat ed hearing on the State’s petition for

adjudication of abuse and neglect, Sheryl’s petitio n for guardianship, and Sheryl’s order of protection. (For purposes of this appeal, we review only the evidence pertinent to the State’s petition.)

¶ 10 1. Briant’s Testimony
¶ 11 Briant testified that on December 5, 2012, he was on an annual family vacation in

Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Several days prior to leavin g for his trip, he downloaded to his iPad an application known as “My Webcam,” which allowed him to view a live webcam feed from the inside of his home while he was away. Briant set up the webcam so that he and his children could monitor their house cats while they were on v acation. Briant set his home webcam to “private” mode, which meant that only he could view the webcam feed. However, Briant testified that hundreds of webcams on the My Webcam service were set to “public” mode, which meant that anyone using the My Webcam service could view the live feed from those

webcams.
¶ 12 Over respondent’s continuing objection, Briant tes tified that while using the My Webcam

application, he decided out of curiosity to view so me of the public webcams. One of the public webcams, listed under the name “Shyla,” showed what initially appeared to Briant to be two juveniles in a bed with an adult male, who was mast urbating. Briant testified that one of the apparent juveniles was a young boy, approximately f ive or six years old, with light brown to blondish hair, and wearing a green shirt. The other juvenile appeared to be an older, blonde female. (At the hearing, Briant identified that per son as respondent.) Briant described the adult male as having black, crew-cut type hair and a larg e “tribal” tattoo on his left arm.
¶ 13 Briant, believing that he was watching “something illegal occurring” and fearing for the

welfare of the juveniles, sent multiple e-mails to the Ireland-based company that owned and administered the webcam service, describing what he saw. The company responded to Briant via e-mail, informing him that “they would do whate ver they can to forward whatever they

could to the authorities.” Briant also sent e-mails to the FBI and the NCMEC. In the e-mails, Briant described exactly what he saw on the Shyla w ebcam.
¶ 14 While Briant was attempting to contact authorities , he continued to view the Shyla webcam

in order to “help identify where this was, who thes e people were.” Briant then “saw the adult male watching what appeared to be child pornography on his laptop as the little boy came around to the side of the bed and performed what ap peared to be oral sex on that adult male.” On cross-examination, Briant elaborated about what he saw: “What I saw was the child shown child pornography, the child’s, then, head descendi ng over the man’s penis, and the man giving back a sippy cup to the young boy after what appear ed to be oral sex.” After the adult male handed the sippy cup to the young boy, the live fee d “seemed to cut out.” During the entire 5 to- 4 -

10 minutes that Briant viewed the Shyla webcam, res pondent appeared to be awake, either walking around the room or lying in the bed with th e adult male and the young boy.
¶ 15 Briant testified that the video had good clarity a nd appeared to be working the entire time.

He knew he was watching a live feed because the sam e webcam service allowed him to view a

live feed inside his home. Briant also knew from hi s use of the webcam service that it “archived” images from the webcam feeds. Someone vi ewing a public webcam could peruse that webcam’s archive, which showed still images th at had been automatically captured from the webcam feed every 5 minutes during the previous 24 hours. Briant looked at the archive of the Shyla webcam, which revealed several still imag es of the same persons in the same room that Briant was viewing on the live feed.

¶ 16 2. Jackie Lynn’s Testimony
¶ 17 Detective Jackie Lynn, a child-abuse investigator with the Kansas City, Kansas, police

department, testified that on or about December 5, 2012, the FBI received a “cybertip” via the NCMEC that the Shyla webcam on the My Webcam servic e had shown an adult male engaging in a sex act with a juvenile boy. Pursuant to that tip, the FBI determined the Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with the Shyla webcam. The FBI then obtained subpoenas for the cable carrier and Internet service provider associated wi th the IP address, which led investigators to a house in Kansas City, Kansas. Based upon Briant’s d escription and photographs obtained through existing law-enforcement contacts, the FBI identified Craig Long as the adult male whom Briant saw on the Shyla webcam.
¶ 18 The FBI also obtained a subpoena for the Ireland-b ased company that owned and

administered the My Webcam service. (During her tes timony, Lynn referred to this company as “eyespyfx.com.” For convenience, we refer to the company simply as “Eye Spy.”) Lynn testified that Eye Spy’s system automatically saved a still image from all My Webcam webcasts every five minutes. Eye Spy normally archi ved those images for only 24 hours before purging them from its server system. However, after Briant contacted Eye Spy, Eye Spy immediately saved the existing images in the Shyla webcam archive. Lynn testified that she

learned the aforementioned information about the in vestigation by reviewing materials provided to her by the FBI Cybercrime Taskforce in Kansas City.
¶ 19 On December 21, 2012, the FBI requested that offic ers from Lynn’s department provide

backup to the house in Kansas City, Kansas, where t he Shyla webcam was supposedly located. After arriving at the house with other officers, Ly nn met with the homeowners. (Lynn did not identify the homeowners by name in her testimony.) The homeowners confirmed that Long stayed in their basement on occasion. Lynn told the homeowners that they should not tell Long that law-enforcement agents were searching for him.
¶ 20 Lynn then obtained a search warrant to track Long’ s cellular phone through Sprint, his

mobile carrier. In early January 2013, after severa l days of tracking Long (during which Long repeatedly powered down his cellular phone, defeati ng efforts to pinpoint his location), officers in Callaway County, Missouri, discovered L ong’s vehicle outside a home that Lynn identified as one of Long’s previously known addres ses. Lynn and other officers obtained and executed a search warrant for the residence, which resulted in the apprehension of Long and respondent. The search failed to uncover Long’s lap top computer or cellular phone, which Long claimed had been stolen from his car. Responde nt told Lynn that Long had destroyed his laptop.- 5 - ¶ 21 During the execution of the search warrant, Lynn s howed respondent the archived images

from the Shyla webcam. (Although the FBI obtained t he same archived images through a subpoena, a representative from Eye Spy–whom Lynn referred to as Mr. Gallagher–voluntarily e-mailed the same set of imag es to Lynn upon her request.) Respondent confirmed to Lynn that the images showed her, Long, and L.S. After speaking with respondent in Callaway County, Lynn learned that L.S. was stay ing with Sheryl in Springfield, Illinois. Before L.S. began staying with Sheryl, he was livin g with respondent and Long.

¶ 22 3. Still Images From the Shyla Webcam Archive
¶ 23 The trial court admitted into evidence 12 still im ages from the Shyla webcam archive. Each

image bore a digital timestamp showing the time the image was captured from the live feed. The timestamps indicate that the Shyla webcam was s treaming during four separate periods between 11:21 a.m. on December 5, 2012, and 4:31 a. m. on December 6, 2012 (although the timestamps show the time in hours, minutes, and sec onds, we round to the nearest minute for convenience). The webcast that Briant viewed occurr ed between approximately 9:21 p.m. and 9:51 p.m. on December 5, 2012. We provide the follo wing overview of the contents of the images, which are in the record before us.
¶ 24 It appears that the position and orientation of th e webcam is the same for all 12 images. The

webcam is positioned alongside and facing a bed. Be yond the bed is an open room illuminated by ceiling lights. The lighting in the room is good , and the images are fairly sharp.
¶ 25 Seven images captured between 9:06 p.m. and 9:51 p .m. on December 5, 2012, show

respondent, L.S., and Long together in the bed. In some of the images, Long is lying on his back with a laptop on his belly, and his head is ou tside of the frame. He appears to be masturbating. Long is wearing boxer-brief type shor ts, but his hand is gripping a flesh-colored object at the base of his crotch. Because Long’s ha nd and the flesh-colored object are significantly blurred, whereas the rest of the obje cts in the image are crisp, it appears that his hand is in motion. In two such images, L.S. is clea rly awake. His eyes are open, and he is lying immediately next to Long on the bed.
¶ 26 In the image captured at 9:21 p.m., the laptop scr een–oriented at a slight angle just visible

to the webcam–is opened to a full-screen media play er. Although the image on media player is difficult to make out, it clearly includes flesh-co lored body parts. Long’s hand is at the base of his crotch. Although the faces of Long and L.S. are outside of the frame, L.S.’s right arm is clearly visible immediately next to Long and raised slightly in the air, indicating that he is

awake.
¶ 27 The image captured at 9:26 p.m. shows Long apparen tly masturbating, respondent lying in

the bed with her eyes closed, and L.S. lying awake in between respondent and Long. The image captured at 9:31 p.m. shows Long apparently m asturbating with L.S. next to him, but respondent is no longer in the bed. The image captu red at 9:36 p.m. shows Long lying on his right side facing the center of the bed, with his b ack to the webcam. His hand is at his crotch, and respondent’s red shorts can be seen next to him in the bed. The image captured at 9:41 p.m. shows Long sitting upright on the bed with his back to the webcam, respondent awake lying on her side, and L.S. sitting upright playing on a tab let computer. Long and respondent appear to be talking with L.S. The next image, captured at 9: 51 p.m., shows Long apparently masturbating again, with the laptop on his belly. R espondent and L.S. are not visible in the image.- 6 - ¶ 28 4. Roger Washington’s Testimony
¶ 29 Roger Washington, a child abuse and neglect invest igator with the Department of Children

and Family Services (DCFS), testified that he was a ssigned to the case involving L.S. in early January 2013. During the investigation, respondent told Washington that Long was her boyfriend, but she denied having any knowledge of L ong sexually abusing L.S.

¶ 30 5. Sheryl’s Testimony
¶ 31 Sheryl, the aunt of respondent and great-aunt of L .S., testified that L.S. had been living

with her from January 1, 2013, until the date of th e hearing. Sheryl identified respondent and L.S. as the female and young boy shown in the image s from the Shyla webcam archive.

¶ 32 6. Respondent’s Testimony
¶ 33 Respondent testified that she was in a relationshi p with Long from 1999 until 2007. After

ending her relationship with Long in 2007, she bega n a relationship with Jason Reels, the father of L.S. (Reels failed to appear at the proce edings in this case, and he is not a party to this appeal.) In 2012, respondent resumed her relationsh ip with Long, bringing L.S. to Missouri to live with Long. Respondent testified that Long had a loving relationship with L.S., and she had no reason to believe that Long was a child sex offe nder. After a friend in Kansas City told her that the police were searching for Long, respondent left L.S. at Sheryl’s home in Springfield. She did not want L.S. present “if the door were to get kicked in.” Respondent testified that she believed the police were searching for Long because he had illegally downloaded nonpornographic movies from the Internet. Responden t confirmed that Long destroyed his laptop computer and cellular phone after learning t he police were searching for him.
¶ 34 Respondent acknowledged that she was in the images obtained from the Shyla webcam

archive, but she denied ever witnessing Long (1) ma sturbate in the presence of L.S, (2) view child pornography, or (3) put his penis in L.S.’s m outh. She did not believe that Long forced L.S. to perform oral sex, but she admitted that it appeared from the webcam images that Long masturbated in the bed with L.S. Respondent testifi ed that she takes trazodone for sleep, and she had “no knowledge of what took place” because s he was sleeping at the time. However, after reviewing the images from the Shyla webcam on e by one on cross-examination, respondent acknowledged that she was not asleep dur ing the time that Long allegedly masturbated in the presence of her and L.S. She con tinued to insist that she had no knowledge of Long masturbating in the presence of L.S.
¶ 35 Respondent did not believe that Long purposefully did anything wrong. She testified: “I

don’t think that [Long] meant [L.S.] any harm, and I don’t think he did any harm to [L.S.]” Despite denying the allegations against Long, respo ndent nonetheless ended her relationship with Long because of the seriousness of the allegat ions.

¶ 36 B. The Trial Court’s Ruling
¶ 37 At the conclusion of evidence and arguments, the t rial court announced its ruling, as

follows:
“First, with regards to the State’s petition, I fin d that the State has established by any measure of proof that [L.S.] was sexually exploited and abused, [and] that [respondent]- 7 - was present at that time. I specifically find that [respondent’s] testimony that she did not know what was going on at that time is incredib le and not worthy of belief. I find that [Briant] *** was very credible, he’s a law enf orcement [officer] who’s trained to observe, and thank goodness, quite frankly, that he happened upon this streaming webcam at that time, because otherwise, this may ne ver have been discovered. I find that it’s incredible when [respondent] says that sh e did not know what was going on in that bed. Particularly, on her cross-examination, s he’s acknowledged that that was her, that that was [L.S.], that was her boyfriend. She a cknowledges that she was awake, she acknowledges that it appears–and that he probably w as masturbating, and yet, she still didn’t think there was anything going on that’s har mful to her child. On some level it’s almost beyond the realm of belief.”
¶ 38 The trial court adjudicated L.S. (1) neglected und er section 2-3(1) of the Act in that

respondent allowed him to be sexually abused by Lon g, and (2) abused under section 2-3(2) of the Act in that he was sexually abused by Long.
¶ 39 In November 2013, following a dispositional hearin g, the trial court made L.S. a ward of

the court and awarded custody and guardianship to D CFS. (The court took Sheryl’s petition for guardianship under advisement.)
¶ 40 This appeal followed.

¶ 41 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 42 On appeal, respondent argues that (1) the trial co urt erred by admitting (a) Briant’s

testimony about what he viewed on the Shyla webcam and (b) the still images captured from the Shyla webcam, and (2) the court’s adjudication of abuse and neglect was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We address respond ent’s contentions in turn.

¶ 43 A. The Webcam Evidence
¶ 44 “The admissibility of evidence rests within the di scretion of the trial court, and its decision

will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discr etion.” People v. Pikes , 2013 IL 115171, ¶ 12, 998 N.E.2d 1247. “Under this standard, an abuse occ urs when the trial court’s ruling is fanciful, unreasonable or when no reasonable person would adopt the trial court’s view.” People v. Taylor , 2011 IL 110067, ¶ 27, 956 N.E.2d 431.
¶ 45 Respondent argues that the “silent witness” theory governs the admissibility of both (1)

Briant’s testimony about what he viewed on the Shyl a webcam and (2) the still images from the Shyla webcam archive. The silent witness theory allows for the admission of photographs and video recordings as substantive evidence if the proper foundation is laid. Id. ¶ 32, 956 N.E.2d 431. “Under this theory, a witness need not testify to the accuracy of the image depicted in the photographic or videotape evidence if the accuracy of the process that produced the evidence is established with an adequate founda tion.” Id

. ¶ 46 In Taylor , a criminal case involving a theft captured on a h idden surveillance camera, the

supreme court endorsed the following nonexhaustive list of factors for determining the reliability of the process by which a surveillance videotape was produced:
“(1) the device’s capability for recording and gene ral reliability; (2) competency of the operator; (3) proper operation of the device; (4) s howing the manner in which the recording was preserved (chain of custody); (5) ide ntification of the persons, locale, or- 8 - objects depicted; and (6) explanation of any copyin g or duplication process.” Id. ¶ 35,

956 N.E.2d 431.

The court stated, however, that “[e]ach case must b e evaluated on its own” and “[t]he dispositive issue in every case is the accuracy and reliability of the process that produced the recording.” Id

.

¶ 47 1. The Still Images From the Webcam Archive
¶ 48 In this case, the photographic evidence at issue c onsisted of 12 still images that Eye Spy

automatically captured and archived from the live v ideo feed of the Shyla webcam. Lynn testified that those digital images were stored on Eye Spy’s server system, then e-mailed to her by Gallagher, a representative of Eye Spy. The imag es were then printed onto individual sheets of glossy photographic paper and offered into evide nce as individual exhibits. Briant viewed the 12 exhibits and confirmed that the still images depicted the same scene that he observed on the live video feed from the Shyla webcam on Decemb er 5, 2012. He also confirmed that the images were the same still images he viewed in the Shyla webcam archive on December 5, 2012. Respondent viewed the same exhibits and confi rmed that they depicted her, L.S., and Long in the basement of the Kansas City house where they were living in December 2012.
¶ 49 Respondent asserts that the State failed to presen t evidence about the (1) equipment used

for the Shyla webcam, (2) competency of the operato r, (3) proper operation of the webcam, (4) chain of custody of the images, and (5) copying or duplication process. However, none of that evidence was necessary because of (1) respondent’s admissions and (2) Briant’s testimony. Respondent’s admissions established that the images showed her, L.S., and Long, demonstrating the accuracy and reliability of the p rocess used to create the images. Respondent has not argued that the images are visua lly misleading, or that they have been altered in any way. Thus, considering respondent’s testimony, as well as Briant’s (discussed in the next section of this opinion), we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the 12 images from the Shyla webcam archi ve into evidence.

¶ 50 2. Briant’s Testimony
¶ 51 Contrary to respondent’s argument, the silent witn ess theory does not apply to Briant’s

testimony about what he viewed on the live feed of the Shyla webcam because Briant’s testimony was not a video recording. Indeed, no vid eo recording of what Briant witnessed has ever existed. Because the silent witness theory app lies to photographs and video recordings–evidence that “speaks for itself” (inter nal quotation marks omitted) ( id. ¶ 32, 956 N.E.2d 431)–the testimony of a witness who sees eve nts unfold live and in real time must be evaluated on its own terms, even if that eyewitness account occurred through video technology.
¶ 52 Because the evidence here consisted of an eyewitne ss account, as opposed to a recording,

the admissibility determination hinged on whether B riant was able to truly and accurately observe what was happening on the source end of the webcast. In other words, did the technology at issue transmit live video to Briant’s iPad that truly and accurately depicted what was happening in the Kansas City basement? Based up on the evidence presented, it clearly did. Specifically, respondent confirmed that she, L.S., and Long were the people in the still images archived from the Shyla webcam, and Briant testifie d that those still images corresponded with- 9 -

the live webcast that he viewed on his iPad on Dece mber 5, 2012. The timestamps on the still images corresponded to the times that Briant viewed the webcast. Briant also positively identified respondent in court as the woman whom he saw on the webcast. Briant testified that the live video stream had good clarity and appeared to be working properly during the entire webcast. He was able to clearly observe what was ha ppening in the bedroom.
¶ 53 The State was not required to present evidence as to the workings of the specific pieces of

electronic equipment that facilitated the webcast. Just as a witness may testify about what he heard during a telephone conversation without expla ining how a telephone works, Briant’s testimony was admissible even though the State did not present evidence explaining how the digital technology worked. Briant’s familiarity wit h My Webcam was enough to establish that the Shyla webcam was a live feed–a fact that respon dent does not contest. Unlike evidence admitted under the silent witness theory, no issue existed as to the process of recording, saving, preserving, or duplicating the video from the webca st because no video recording existed. Instead, this situation was as if Briant witnessed the events unfold through a high-tech periscope.
¶ 54 Despite the complete lack of evidence suggesting t hat the webcast Briant viewed showed

anything other than what actually happened in the K ansas City basement, respondent argues that the State was required to present testimony (a nd perhaps even expert testimony) regarding the equipment and software used to facilitate the w ebcast–from Long’s webcam, to Eye Spy’s servers in Ireland, to Briant’s iPad, and every ele ctronic step along the way. Respondent asserts that because technology exists that could have enab led Long–or some other unknown person–to manipulate digital video and somehow pass it off as a live webcam feed on the My Webcam service, Briant’s testimony was inadmissible unless the State presented evidence proving that no such mischief occurred.
¶ 55 Contrary to respondent’s argument, the mere possibility of tampering–unsupported by any

evidence of tampering–did not render Briant’s testi mony inadmissible. In People v. Woods

, 214 Ill. 2d 455, 467, 828 N.E.2d 247, 255 (2005), t he supreme court addressed the requirement that the State establish a chain of custody in case s involving narcotics, where physical evidence “is often not readily identifiable or may be suscep tible to tampering, contamination or exchange.” Even when evidence so vulnerable to tamp ering is involved, “[o]nce the State has established the probability that the evidence was n ot compromised, and unless the defendant shows actual evidence of tampering or substitution, deficiencies in the chain of custody go to the weight, not admissibility, of the evidence.” (I nternal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
¶ 56 Here, even if the strict chain-of-custody requirem ents applicable to narcotics were to apply

to the webcast that Briant viewed, Briant’s testimo ny would still be admissible. The probability that the video was not compromised was evident from (1) Briant’s testimony about the My Webcam service, (2) the circumstances under which Briant viewed the webcast, and (3) the contents of the webcast itself. Respondent presented no evidence of tampering, nor did she even posit why or how anyone–especially Long–wo uld have employed Hollywood-style video-manipulation skills and advanced computer hac king to create and stream a fictitious webcast purporting to show Long masturbating in bed with L.S. Respondent’s assertion that such a possibility existed went–at most–to the weig ht of Briant’s testimony, not its admissibility.
¶ 57 We acknowledge that it is possible a case might ar ise in which a foundational explanation

of the technology involved might be necessary befor e a witness testifies about what he- 10 -

observed over a live webcast or other similar live video feed. However, that is not this case, and we need not speculate about hypothetical cases. On the facts of this case, the evidence established that the technology involved allowed Br iant to truly and accurately observe what was happening at the source end of the webcast. Acc ordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Briant’s testimony about wh at he viewed on the Shyla webcam.

¶ 58 B. The Trial Court’s Adjudication
¶ 59 Respondent next contends that the trial court’s ad judication of abuse and neglect was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specif ically, respondent argues that (1) she was not aware of, or at fault for, the sexual abuse tha t Long may have inflicted on L.S.; (2) the court erred by admitting and considering evidence from th e Shyla webcam; and (3) even if the evidence from the Shyla webcam was properly admitte d, the court gave it too much weight. None of these arguments are remotely persuasive.
¶ 60 A trial court’s finding that a minor has been negl ected or abused under section 2-3 of the

Act will not be reversed unless it is against the m anifest weight of the evidence. In re Arthur

H. , 212 Ill. 2d 441, 464, 819 N.E.2d 734, 747 (2004). “A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” Id

. ¶ 61 In this case, the trial court found that the State proved L.S. (1) neglected under section

2-3(1) of the Act in that his environment was injur ious to his welfare because respondent allowed him to be sexually abused and (2) abused un der section 2-3(2) of the Act because he was sexually abused by Long.
¶ 62 As this court has consistently stated, “ ‘ “the pu rpose of juvenile court proceedings is to

determine the status of the child on whose behalf the proceedings are br ought, not to determine any particular person’s criminal or civil liability .” ’ ” (Emphases in original.) In re C.J. , 2011 IL App (4th) 110476, ¶ 41, 960 N.E.2d 694 (quoting In re J.W. , 386 Ill. App. 3d 847, 854, 898 N.E.2d 803, 809 (2008), quoting In re R.B. , 336 Ill. App. 3d 606, 614, 784 N.E.2d 400, 407 (2003)). Accordingly, even if respondent was not aw are of, or at fault for, Long’s sexual abuse of L.S., her lack of knowledge or culpability would not affect the validity of the trial court’s findings of neglect and abuse. In any event, the co urt did find that respondent was aware Long masturbated in the presence of L.S., and this findi ng was amply supported by the evidence. The court explicitly found respondent’s contrary testim ony incredible, a conclusion fully supported by this record. Notably, respondent does not disput e that Long sexually abused L.S.
¶ 63 Having already determined that the trial court pro perly admitted the evidence from the

Shyla webcam, we necessarily reject respondent’s ar gument that the court erred by considering that evidence. We also reject respondent’s argument that the court gave too much weight to the evidence from the Shyla webcam. Briant’s testimony, which the court found particularly credible, and the 12 images from the webcam archive established that respondent was present and awake while Long was (at the very least) mastur bating in the presence of L.S. Briant also testified that Long showed child pornography to L.S . and made L.S. perform oral sex. This evidence clearly established that L.S. was neglecte d and abused. Accordingly, the court’s finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.- 11 - ¶ 64 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 65 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’ s judgment.

¶ 66 Affirmed.