1 FIFTH DIVISION Jul y 30, 2010 No. 1-10- 0132 In re AN AY A J .G., a M i

nor. (THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS,

Petitioner-A

ppelle e, v. DEBR A J ., Res

ponde nt-A ppel l an t). )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appe al fro m the Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Co o k C o un t y.
No. 06 JA 175 T he Ho no r ab le Demetrios G. Kot taras, Judge Presidin

g. JU STI CELA

VI N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: In thi s case, we consi

der whether the notice

provisi ons of the Indi

an Ch il d Wel fare A ct sho uld ha ve ap plie d in a t er minat io n o f pa r en t al r igh t s ( T PR ) he ar ing wh en t he r e w as so me evi dence that her m

aternal gran

dmother m

ay have been

aff il ia ted with the Ch

erokee tr ib e. BACK GROUND A na ya J .G. , th e b i ol ogical

da ugh ter of Debr a J . an d L arr y G., wa s b orn

dru g e xp ose d on Feb ruary 14, 200 6. Sev

eral weeks later, the

ci rcui t court took temporary

cus tody of

An ay a. Wi thin two months of he

r bi rth, Anay a was placed i

n the f oster care o f K

evi n W . and his wi fe, Geraly n W . Anay

a i s Af rican -Am erica n. Kev in and Geral

yn are Caucasi

an. On Septem

ber 5, 200 6, t he circ uit co ur t fou nd t hat Debr a wa s una ble, u nwilli ng, and u nfit t o c ar e fo r Anaya a nd ad j udi ca ted A n ay a a wa rd of th e c our t. Unfitness Finding On October 1, 2007, the Stat e fi le d a petition to termi

nate the parental

righ ts of Debra, al l eg i ng ei gh t grou nds of Debr a’ s u nf i tne ss pur suan t to se cti on 5 0/1 (D) of

the A dopti on A ct of1-10-0132

2

1960 (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2006)) and section 405/2-29 of the Juven il e Courts Act o f 1987 (705 ILCS 4 05/2-29) (W

est 2006)). On

Novem ber 18 , 2009, at the conc l usion of the

TPR heari ng, the ci rcuit court found that the St ate had shown b y c le ar and conv

in ci ng ev ide nce that Debra was unfi

t. In its written or der enter ed December 7, 2009, t he court found that Debra was a ha bit ua l dr un ka r d w ho ha d d es er t ed he rne wb o rn d au gh t er an d h ad faile d t o mak e a ny r ea so na ble eff ort s toward reunif

ic ation wi th her chi ld. A mong other evi

dence, the ci

rcuit court not ed that Debr a’s p ar t icipat ion in dr ug t re at ment w as sp or adic a nd inco nsist ent , w ith D ebr a t est ing po sitive for drug use i

n A ugust and Septemb er 2008, and that Anay a’s si bl in gs were al so born drug exposed. The court also noted that Debra’s wherea bouts were unknown f

rom October 2008 through May 2009, a nd s he wen t exten ded p eriods of

tim e wi thout vi si tin g A na ya. Best Interest Hearing On Dece m ber 7, 200 9, the

ci rcui t court hel

d the be st i ntere st porti on of

the TPR he ari ng. Debra was n

ot present i

n court when the case

was cal le d at 10:16 a.m. The case was passed at t hat t ime, and Debr a’s c ou nsel wa s pe rmitt ed t o c heck if Debra had left any messag es. When he returned at appro xi

ma tely 10:30 a.m., he i

ndicated that he had checked his m essages a nd then renewed h

is request for a continua

nce, whi ch was de nied. The court st ated that Debra had been in c o ur t o n o cc as io n, bu t ha d fa iled t o ap pe ar o n o cc as io n, as we ll. The State fi

rst call ed Deborah Buckl

es, the Departmen

t o f Ch il d and Fa mi ly Services ( DC FS ) ca se wo rke ras sig ne d t o Ana ya’ s c as e s inc e J un e 8 , 20 07
. Bu ck les r ec o mmend ed t ha t it was i n A nay a’s b est in terest t o t ermi

nate parental

righ ts because sh

e had b een i

n the sam e foster ho me sinc e Ap ril 2 00 6; t he fo st er pa re nt s ha d me t all he r s pe cia l nee ds ; t hey ha d p ro vide d a sa fe1-10-0132

3

an d n ur t ur ing en vir o nme nt fo rhe r ; it wa s t he o nly h o me t ha t Ana ya h ad be en st ab le in ; a nd Ana ya bel ie ved h er parents were like

biologica l pa rents. Buckl es opin

ed that Anay

a and h er foster par ent s had a “ver y close bond ,” and t hat Anaya “ap pea re d t o ha ve a ve ry loving a nd ca ring relationshi

p with the f

oster parents.” She belie

ved A nay a fel t “love d and secure i

n he r foster home. ” Anaya r efer re d t o he r fo st er mot her , G er alyn, as “M ommy” and he r fo st er fat her , Ke vin, as “Da ddy.” Buckles al so test if

ie d that Anay

a “was devel oping a bond wi th [Debra]. They

[would] play together a

nd s he [would] al

l ow [Deb ra] to pi ck h

er up.” An ay a had n ev er l i ve d wi th De bra
. Debra’s l ast co ntact w ith An aya was “appro xi

mately a couple of months” prior to the best interest he ari ng. On cross-exam

in ation, Buckl

es expl ai ned that Debra b egan to vi si t with An ay a i n ei ther Fe br ua ry or M arc h of 200 8 a t he r of f i ce . W hi l e A na ya’ s f oster pa ren ts i ni ti al l y sta yed i n th e room t o he lp Anaya ad

just t o t he visits , a fte r t he first t wo visits, t hey wer e as ked t o s t ep o ut of t he
roo m. Buckl

es testif ie d that it was di ff

ic ult to get them out of the room. Buckl es i nf ormed them that because the goal

was f or Anay a to “retur n hom

e,” the foster parents needed to work t owards facilitat ing her re t ur n t o D ebr a. The fost er par ent s did no t enco ur age Anaya t o e ngag e o r bo nd wit h Debr a and re mained ambivalent re gar ding leaving t he visita t ion r oo m. On o ne visit in t he mi ddle of 2008, the foster parents talked i n the room nex

t do or t o t he v

is iti ng room, whi

ch dis tract ed An

ay a. Buckl es stated that t he f oster parents’ behav

ior on these v

is its di d not aff ect the bondi ng be tween Debra an

d An ay a. Buckles stated that she did n ot recall the f

oster parents t elli

ng A nay a not to call h

er1-10-0132

4

bi ologica l pa rents m om an d dad but recalle d the foster parents’ concern with wh ether Ana ya was starting to get co nf

used about havi

ng “ two momm

ie s and two daddies .” At the tim

e of her testim

ony, Buckl

es expres sed no concerns

about the cultural di

ff erences between Anay

a and her foster pare nts. Anay a’s foster parent s were given a cultural awareness CDb y th ei r l i cen si n g w orker

an d h ad A f rica n A meri ca n b ooks an d doll s f or A n ay a. A t on e p oi n t, Buck l es w as c once

rne d tha t the f oster pare nts d i d not kn ow how to dea

l wi th A na ya’s ha i r. Buckles expl

ai ned that becaus e they

were not mois

turizi ng he r hai r, it becam

e “a l ittle bit m atted” at t imes. S he lat er not iced t he fo st er par ent s had picke d up oils fo r Anaya’ s hair, which wa s “a good improvem

ent.” Moreover, Anay

a’s f oster parents had not inv

ited an y e xtended b iol

ogical fam il y m em bers to talk wi

th Ana ya and h ad not enrolled An

ay a i n an y A fri can A me rican cul tural
aw ar en es s c las se s. Bu ck les als o ad dr es se d h er co nc er n t ha t t he fo st er pa r en t s c alle d A na ya “A nn i e” i nstead of by her gi ven n am e. Anay a’s fost er father , Kevin, to ok t he stand next . Kevin expl ained some of Anay

a’s spe cial need s, w hich included physical t her apy, oc cup at ional t her apy, and s pee ch t her apy. Among
o t he rac t ivit ies , Ana ya t o o k s wimming les so ns a nd pla yed o n a so cc er t ea m. Ke vin s aid he an d h is wi f e treated An ay a as i f she was thei r own c hi l d. He tes

tif i ed th at i t was h i s an d Gera l y n’ s de si re t o ad o pt Ana ya, an d t he y ha d d es ir ed t o do so sin ce t he y fir st met Ana ya. Ke vinan d G er alyn fost er ed a re latio nship wit h Anaya’s bio log ical sist er Chane l, who lived in So ut h Car olina, by exch angi ng cards at bi

rthdays and h oliday s and s endi

ng pictures. Anay

a al so vi si ted with he

r bio lo gic al b r o t he r , Na

jm. On cross-exam

in ation, Kev

in stated t hat he an

d Geraly n too k An

ay a to Cat holi

c church1-10-0132

5

bu t did n ot know the re l i gion of

A na ya’ s b i ol ogi

cal pa ren ts. A na ya h ad br ough t up th e i ss ueof race on one occasi on when she s ai d that her ski

n was b rown and Geral

yn ’s ski n was wh ite. Wh en the perman

ency goal ch anged i n l ate 2008 to “return hom

e” he un derstoo d that t o mean

that Anaya wou ld be re- united with her biological par ent s. Kevin and Ge ralyn did everything DCFS asked of them

, which pri

ma ril y i nvol ved taki ng A nay a to visi ts schedul ed wi th her bi ologica l parents. He had h

ired an atto rney, who suggested that t hey in tervene i n A nay a’s cas e, but never
ac t ua lly did so . Ke vin’ s o pin io n w as t ha t De br a h ad no t sho wn muc h int er es t in Ana ya. Ke vin did not think i

t was in An

aya’s best interest t o know her biological parents unt il

she was at least 18 y ears old
. Larry, A nay a’s b iol ogical father, testif

ie d that he was Bapti st. He was concerned that An ay a would grow up not knowing an ythi ng ab out her bi

ologica l pa rents. Larry’ s opin

ion was that Anay a like d bei

ng around Deb

ra and l ike d si tt in g in her lap. Debra had a

lwa ys to ld L arry that she di d not wa nt her par en tal ri ghts term i na ted. A f ter argu men ts, th e c i rc ui t cou rt c on cl uded th at i t wa s i n A n ay a’ s b est i n terest to ter m i n ate pa re n tal ri gh ts a n d a pp oi n ted D. Je an Or teg a- Pi ron gu ardi an wi th ri gh t to co n se n t to adopt ion. The court to ok judici al n ot ice of the evi

dence previousl

y presented during the fi

tness procee di ngs . The court repe ated i

ts f i ndi ng of unf i tnes s as to Debra and La rry . The court determi ned that there was a l

ack of partici

pation an d in consi stency

in the relationshi

p between Debr a and Anaya. T he t rial co ur t co mpar ed t hat re latio nship t o t he “ver y pos itive nu rt ur ing
r ela t io nsh ip b et we en [ Ana ya] an d t he fo st er pa r en t s. ” T he t r ial c o ur t ex pla ine d t ha t Ana ya w as in a pre- adopti

ve hom e, an d the placemen t was s af e an d appropri ate.1-10-0132

6

The tria l court cons i dered

that A na ya i s Af ri can Am erican and the f oster pare nts a re Caucasi an. Wh il e the trial court was concerne d with race and cul tural i ssues, i

t beli eved “ [i]ss

ues
su ch as be ing t he r e fo rt he ch ild, nu r t ur ing t he ch ild, be ing t he r e fo rt he ch ild o n a pe rman en t ba sis as opposed to a sporadic an d in consi stent basi s i s m

ore im port ant.” The court t hen

hel d a perm anency he ari ng a nd e ntere d a goal

of a dopti on f or An ay a. Evidence of Indian Heritage The record in

dic ates three instances wh ere An ay a’s al le ged Cherokee heri

tage was bro ught t o t he co ur t ’s at t ent ion. The first insta nce o ccu rr ed o n Sep t ember 2 8, 200 7, at t he t empo ra ry cu st od y hearing fo r Anaya’ s bro t her , N ajm. De bra st at ed t hat her mot her ’s side of t he f am i l y had Ch erokee bl ood. Debra wa s n

ot a regi stered

mem ber of a ny Am erican Ind i an trib e. Deb ra di d not kn ow what ba

nd of Cherokee

or whe ther a ny relati ve s we re reg i stered

mem bers. Deb ra’s mother, R

oszel l a, i s de cea sed . Deb

ra di d not kn ow he r m other’ s b i rthda y . The court informed Debr a t hat it as ked her abo ut her her itag e so t he St at e co uld, if necessa ry, no t ify t he Cherokee trib e of i ts right to i

nterv ene. The sec ond re fere nce t o Ana ya’s Che ro kee her itag e o ccu rr ed o n June 11, 200 9, at t he he ari ng on Larr y ’s em erg en cy moti on f or a c onti nu an ceof the TPR he ari ng . De br a w asnot present but was represen

ted by an ass is tant publi c defe nder. Larry

stated t hat hi s ci

vi l ri ghts had be en vi ola ted, wh i ch i nc l uded his “ trib al ri ghts .” W

hen a ske d ab out hi s In

di an ri ghts , Larry
answ er ed, “The c hild have I ndian r ight s, N at ive American r ight s.” The co ur t t hen as ked t he pa rties i f th ere w ere a

n y i ss ue s of In di an tri b al af f i l i ati on th at req ui re d n oti f i ca ti on . Th e S tate repre sen ted tha t it wa s n ot aware of

an y trib al af f i l i ati on i ssues. W

hen the State as

ked i f Larry1-10-0132

1 In La rry ’s se pa rate appe al , pu

rs ua nt to Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 49 3, 87 S. Ct
. 13 96 ( 19 67 ) , we fo un d n o iss ue s o f ar gu ab le me r it t o be as se r t ed o n a pp ea l, gr ant ed L ar ry’s ap po inted co unse l’s mot ion fo r leave t o w ithd ra w, and a ffi rmed t he o rd er of t he ci rc ui t cou rt. 7 was a member o f a Nat ive American t ribe, he r esp ond ed, “The M ot her is.” T he St at e as ked if the child was a member; he re spo nded , “T he Mo t her is.” L ar ry was t hen sw or n in as a w itnes s and the p arti es q

ues tion ed h i m und er oath. Wh i l e un der oath , Larry

testi f i ed th at he

wasnot a m

em ber of a ny Nati ve Am erican trib e. Wh en asked i f h is daughter, Anay

a, was a m

em ber of an y Native Am erica n trib e, he responded, “She is a – she is a Na t ive American by – w hy you ca ll i t – t he Gr andmo t her des cend ent . T he Gr and mo t her wa s a Che ro ke e I ndia n, o ka y.” La rr y didno t kno w if Ana ya w as a me mber o f a Nat ive American t ribe o r if the gr andmo t her was a member o f a Cher ok ee t ribe. Lar ry said he kne w Deb ra wa s a Cherokee In

di an be caus e the

y tal ked a bout i t. The thi rd referen ce to Anay

a’s Indi an h eritage occurred at the TPR hearin g on Novem

ber 10, 2009 . Larry again

test if ied that Debra is a Native A meri can and An

aya’s grandmother was a “Cher ok ee, full bl

oo d. ” Lar ry re iter at ed t hat he is no t a Na t ive American.

Debra’s Appeal On Ja nu ar y 6, 20 10 , De br a file d a t imely no t ice o f ap pe al. La rry is no t a p ar t y t o t his ap pe al. 1 De br a r ais es t hr ee iss ue s o n a pp ea l. Fir st , De br a c o nt en ds t ha t t he cir cu it co ur t er r ed in faili ng t o no t ify

t he Che ro kee t ribe o f the TP R pr oc eed ings, pur sua nt t o s ect ion 1 912 (a ) o f the Indian Ch il d Wel fare A ct of 1978 (the Act) (25 U.S. C. § 1912 (2006)), when i t had been

appris ed that Anay a was possi

bl y e li gible for m em bersh ip i n the Ch erokee tr ib e. Second, Debra contends1-10-0132

8

t hat she w as d enied d ue p ro ces s whe re t he t rial co ur t denied her mot ion fo r a co nt inuance and conduct ed the best interest hearin g in her absence. Thi

rd, Debra co ntends that the circuit cou rt ’s fi ndi ng that it was i

n A nay a’s b est in terests for her mother’s paren tal rights to be termin

ated was agai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. AN AL YSIS Debr a f i rs t con ten dstha t the ci rcu i t cou rt er red i n f ai l i ng to noti f y the Ch erok eetri be of t he T PR p ro cee dings p ur sua nt t o t he Act . D ebr a r equ est s t hat we r ever se a nd r emand t o t he ci rcuit court for further proceedings in compl ia nce wi th the Act. Whe

ther the circui

t cour t was requi red to gi ve noti ce to the C

herokee tri

be und er the Act in vol ve s an i ssue of statutory in terpret ation, whi

ch we rev ie w de novo
. In re

T.A. , 378 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 10 83, 108 7 (200 8). The Act govern

s ch i l d-cus tody proceed

i ngs i nv olv i ng I ndi an chi l dren , i

nc l udi ng fostercare pl acem

ents, the termi

nations of parental

righ ts, and adoptive pl

acem ents. 25 U.S.C. §§ 19 02 , 19 03 (2 00 6) . “ In

di an tri b es , f un cti oni n g a s a uton om ous com m un i ti es , hav e a se pa ra te in terest in the potential

Indian ch il d wel fare proceedi

ngs f rom the parties i

nvol ved.” T.A. , 37 8 I ll. A pp . 3d at 1 09 2. A

cc ordi n gl y , the A ct prov i de s th at i f th e c i rc ui t cou rt “ kn ows or h as re as on to kno w” t hat an I ndian child is involved in an involunt ar y cust od y pro cee ding, t he pa rt y seek ing t he foster-care place

me nt of the Indi

an ch il d mus t not if y the parent or Indian

custodian an

d the Indian chi l d’s trib e of the p endi ng proceed

i ng a nd th ei r ri ght to i

nterv ene. 25 U .S.C. § 1 912(a

) (2006 ). The Act def i ne s “ Ind i an chi l d” as an unm arried pe rson und er the age of 18 wh o “i s ei ther (a ) a member o f an Ind ian tr ibe or (b) is eligibl e fo r member ship in an Ind ian tr ibeand i s the bi ologica l chi ld of a m em ber of an Indian trib e.” 25 U.S.C . § 1903 (4).1-10-0132

9

We m ust determi

ne wh ether the ci

rcuit court had a “reason to know” Anay a was an Indi an child. D ebr a do es no t ar gue on a ppe al tha t Anaya sat isfies the re quir ement s o f sect ion 1 903 (4 )( b) as both Debra an

d Larry testi fi

ed that they were n

ot me mb ers of an

Indian trib e. Debra contends that, pursuant t o section 1903(4)(a), t he ci rcuit court had reason to know t hat An ay a i s a m em ber of an Indian tribe. Put ano ther way, Debra cont ends that t here was suff ici ent eviden

ce to establi sh t hat Anaya her self co uld have been a member in her ow n right base d o n her ow n st at us a s t he granddaughter of a Ch

erokee Indian . Whi

le we agree that Anay

a’s status as an In

dia n ch il d does not exclusi

vely depend o n her biological parents’ t ribal mem bership, we disagre e with Debra’s
asse ssment of t he evide nce. We co nclude t hat unde r t he fact s in this r eco rd , t her e wa s insufficient evi dence to giv

e the trial court reason to know t hat An ay a i s a m em ber of an Indian trib e. In re T.A. is i nstru ctive. T here, t he appellate co urt found t hat t he evidence of the child’s Indian he ri tag e w as“un su

bs tan ti ate d a nd va gue ” a nd di d n ot gi ve the tri al cou rt re as on to k

now that the chi l d was an Ind i an chi l d so as

to trigge r the n otice requi rem en ts under the Act. T.A. , 378 Ill . App. 3d at 1094. The evidence of the chi ld’ s Indian h

eritage consisted of the bi ologica l mother’s statements to a caseworker t hat she was of Nativ e Am erica n descen t, and that she was
una ware i f an y of h er f am i l y mem bers we re reg i stered

wi th an y trib es. T.A. , 378 Ill . App. 3d at 1093. The T.A. co ur t ex pla ine d t ha t wh ile me mbe r ship in a pa r t icu lar t r ibe is no t ea sily determi ned, “the m

ere me ntion of Indian h eritage does not giv

e a trial court reason to know t hat the chi ld i s an In dia n ch il d.” T.A. , 378 Ill . App. 3d at 1092. As in T.A. , we co ncl

ude that Anay

a was not an Indian chi

ld pursuant to the Act because there wasi ns uf f i cien t evi den ce to establ i sh

that sh e i s a m em ber of a n In di an trib e. The rec ord1-10-0132

10

in dic ates that t here was n

o evi dence prese

nted at tr ia

l that An ay a hersel f is a m em ber of an Indian tribe. Nei ther Debra nor Larry

are me mb ers of an

Indian trib e. Whi

le Debra represen

ted that t her e is Cher ok ee blo od on he r d ece ase d mo t her ’s side of t he family , she did no t kno w wha t band of Cherokee or wh

ethe r an y relati ve s we re reg i stered

mem bers of the Cherokee tri

be . Larry simi larly sta t ed t hat he believed Anaya’s mat er nal gr andmo t her was a Che ro kee Ind ian, bu t t hat he did no t kno w if the gr andmo t her was a member o f the t ribe. The circu it co ur t allowe d all of t he parties to question Larry

about Anay

a’s Indi an h eritage. Al

l of the parties see

mi ngl y a greed that the re wasno r

ea son to know that A

na ya w asan Indian ch i l d s o asto trigge

r th e n oti f i ca ti on provisi ons of the A

ct. These bare ass ertions wi thout any evi dence that any

of An ay a’s rel ative s
we r e me mbe r s o f t he Ch er o ke e t r ibe did no t giv e t he cir cu it co ur t r ea so n t o kn o w t ha t Ana ya is
an Indian ch i l d. B as ed

on th es e f ac ts, we c an

not i nv al i da te the c i rcu i t cou rt’ s determ

i na ti on pe r t ain ing t o Ana ya’ s s t at us as an I nd ian ch ild. Ac co r din gly, t he cir cu it co ur t did no t er rin fai li ng to notif

y the Cherokee tribe

of the proceedin

g and i ts right to interven

e. Debra n ext contends that she was deni ed due process where the tria l c ourt deni

ed her mot ion fo r a co nt inuance and c ond uct ed t he bes t inter est hear ing in her a bsenc e. “It is within t he j uven i l e c ourt' s d

i screti on w he the r to gran t or de ny a c onti nu an cemoti on a

nd the cou rt' s dec i si on wil l n ot be di sturbed absen

t mani fes t abuse or palpab le

in jus tice.” In re K.O. , 336 Ill . App. 3d 98, 104 (2 002). Th

ere is n o abs olu te ri ght to a con

tin uan ce. K.O. , 3 36 I ll. App. 3d a t 104 . “T he deni al of a request for contin

uance is not a ground for reversal unless the com

pla in in g party has been prejudi ced by such den ia l.” K.O. , 33 6 I l l . A

pp . 3d at 1 04 . “ A l th oug h a p aren t h as a ri gh t to b e p re se n t at a h ea ri n g to te rm i n ate pa re n tal ri gh ts, i t i s n ot m an da tory th at h e or sh e b e p re se n t,1-10-0132

11

and the ci rcuit court is not obli

gated to wai

t until he or she ch

ooses to appear.” K.O. , 33 6 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 105. Here, the record indi

cates that t he b est in

terest hearin

g was set to be heard on Decem ber 7, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. Debra was n ot present when

the case was c alle d at 10:16 a.m. The case was pas sed at that ti me, an d Deb ra’s coun sel wasperm

i tted to chec

k i f Deb ra had l ef t any mess ages . When he retur ned, he in

dicated that he had checked hi s mess ages and then renewed hi s request for a contin

uance, wh

ic h was den ie d. The court not ed that Debra had b een i nconsistent in

her
co ur t ap pe ar an ce s. Un de rt he se cir cu mst an ce s, t he cir cu it co ur t did no t ab us e it s d isc r et io n in den y i ng D ebra’s

motion f or a conti nua nc e. Debr a n ex t con ten dstha t the ci rcu i t cou rt’ s f i nd i ng tha t i t wa s i n A na ya’ s b es t i nte res ts f or her m other’ s pa ren tal ri ghts to be term

i na ted was agai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Debra does not cha

l l enge on appea l the ci rcui t court’s fi

ndi ng of unf i tness duri ng the TPR heari ng. Once a

trial court fi nds a paren

t unfi t, t he court must then determ in e whether term i na tion of p aren tal ri ghts i s i n the b est i

ntere sts of

the chi l d. In re Jan ira T. , 368 Ill . App. 3d 883, 894 (2006). In maki ng thi s determi

nation, the court is requi

red to consider factors such as t he child's p hysical safet y and we lfare; t he de velop ment o f the child’s ident ity; t he child's background and t ies, i

ncl uding f ami li al, cul tur al, and rel

igi ous; the chil

d’s sense of attachments; t he child’s w ishes and long -t er m go als; t he child’s c ommunit y ties, including chu rc h, sc hoo l, and f rien ds ; th e ch i l d' s n

ee d f or p er man en ce , i n cl udi n g h er n ee d f or s tab i l i ty an d c on ti n ui ty wi th pa re n tal f i gu re s a n d oth er re l ati v es ; th e u n i qu en es s of ev er y f am i l y an d c h i l d; th e ri sks rel

ate d to substitute car e; and the preferences of the person avail able to care for t he chi

ld. 705 ILCS1-10-0132

12

405/1 –3(4.0 5) (West 200 8). Th e Sta te b ea rs the bu rde n of prov i ng by a p rep ond

era nc e of the ev i de nc e that te rm

i na ti on i s i n the ch i l d's be st i ntere sts. Janira T

. , 368 Ill . App. 3d at 894. The trial c ourt 's f in din g that termination is i

n the child' s best in

terest wil l n ot be di sturbed unless i

t is again st t he m ani fest wei ght of the e vi den ce. In re Tash a L. -I

., 383 Ill . App. 3d 45 , 52 (2 008). “A decision is against t he manifest weight of t he evide nce w her e t he o ppo site co nclusio n is clear ly evident o r w her e t he fi ndi ngs are un

reasonabl e, arbi trary, and n

ot based upon an

y of the evi dence.” Tash a L.. -I

., 383 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 52. A revi ew of the record shows that the trial court 's deci

si on to termi

nate Debra’ s parental righ ts as to An

ay a was not contrary to t he m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. Evi dence prese

nted at t he bes t inter est hear ing re vealed t hat t her e wa s a lack of p ar t icipat ion and incons iste ncy in the relationshi

p between Debra and Anay a. On the co ntrary, t he evi dence suggests t hat Anay a has a po sitive, safe, and nu rt ur ing re latio nship wit h her fost er par ent s t hat she ha s lived wit h since she was about si

x weeks ol

d. Whi le there are cul

tural di ff erences, the tria

l c ourt expl

ai ned, “i ssues
su ch as be ing t he r e fo rt he ch ild, nu r t ur ing t he ch ild, be ing t he r e fo rt he ch ild o n a pe rman en t ba sis
as o ppo sed t o a spo ra dic and incons iste nt basis is mor e impor t ant .” We ag re e. When co nsider ing all of the statut ory f

actors, we fi

nd the ci rcuit court’s best in

terest det ermi

nation to be supported by the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. CONCLUSION Fo r the f ore goi n g r ea son s, we af f i rm th e order of

th e c i rc ui t cou rt.1-10-0132

13

Af fi rmed. TOOM IN, P.J., a

nd H OW SE, J., con

cur.1-10-0132

14 REPORT ER OF D ECI SION S – ILLI NOIS APPE LLATE COURT

(Front S heet to b e Attac

hed to Each C ase) In r e AN AY A J .G., a Mi

nor . (THE PEOPL

E OF THE STA

TE OF I LL INOIS,
Petitioner-

Appe llee, v. DEB RA J., Respo ndent- Ap pellan t). No. 1-10- 0132 Appellate Cour t of Illinois Fir st D istr ict, FIF TH Division July 30, 2010 (Giv e mo nth, da y and y ear) JUSTICE LA VI N d el ivere d th e o pin io n o f th e c ourt: Toom in , P.J., and Ho

wse , J. co ncu r dissent[s]

Lo w er C ou rt and Trial J udg e( s) in f

orm indi ca te d in t he m argi n: The Ho norable Dem

etrios G. Kott aras , Judge Presiding. Indicate if attorney represe nts APPELLANTS o

r APPELLEES and include attorneys o f co

unsel. Indicate the word NONE if not represe nted. Attor neys for Petit ioner -Appel lee: Ani ta Al varez , Sta te’s Att orn ey Peo ple Richard J. Daley Ce nter, Room 309 Chicago, IL 60602 312.603.5496 Anay a J Of fic e o f the

Coo k Co unty Pub lic G uardian Robert Harr is, Ka ss Plai n, Jean Agat hen 224 5 W. Ogd en Ave. , 4 th Floor Chicago, IL 60612 312.433.4300 Attorney s f or Re spondent-Appellant: Abish i C. C unn in gha m, Jr ., Pu blic Defender Debra J. Jam es Ja cobs 69 W. Wa shingto

n St ., 1 5th F lo or. Chicago, IL 60602 312.603.0600 Plea se Use Following For m: Comple te TIT LE of Case

Dock et N o. COURT Opi ni on Filed

JU STICES

APPE AL from th e Ci rcu it Ct. of Co ok Co un t y, Cri min al Div.

For APPEL LA NTS, Joh n Doe , of Chi cago. For APPEL LEES, Smith and S mith of Chi cago, Joseph Brown, (of Co unsel) Also add at tor ne ys for third- party ap pe ll an ts or appellees.