No. 3–08–0547 Consolidated with No. 3-08-0548

____________________________________________________________________________ Filed November 26, 2008 IN THE AP PE LLATE COU RT OF ILLIN OIS THIR D JUDI CIAL

DISTRICT A.D., 2008 In re B.B. and A.T., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the10t

h Judicial Cir

cuit, Minors ) Peoria Co unty , Illi nois, ) (The Peo ple of the State of I llinois, )

) Petitioner-Appellee, ) Nos. 05 JA 276 and 05 JA 277 ) v. ) ) Quinn T., ) Honorab le ) Chris L. Frederickse n, Responde nt-Appe llant) ) Judge Presi ding.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE WRIGH T deliver

ed the opi nion of the

court:

______________________________________________________________________________ Quinn T. is the mother of the minor children, B.B. and A.T. On F ebruary 14, 2006, the trial court found the minors, B.B. and A.T., neglected and entered an order a djudicating the minors wards of the court. The State filed petitions for termination of parenta l rights against the mother on behalf of each of the minor children. Af ter finding the mother unfit as alleged in the petitions to terminate mother’s parental rights, the trial court conducte d a best interest hearing on July 7, 2008. The court found it was in the best interest of both minor childre n to terminate the moth er's par ental rights . Mot her fi led a t imel y notice o f appea l, and the tw o juv enile procee dings2

were c onsolidat

ed on app eal. We r

everse and rema nd with dir

ections. FACTS Quinn T. gave birth to B.B. on November 14, 2005, a t OSF St. Francis Medical Center, Pe or ia , Il li no is . A t b ir th , B .B .’ s b lo od te st ed po si ti ve fo r t he pr es en ce of co ca in e. Co ns eq ue nt ly, on November 21, 2005, the State filed a juvenile petition in Peoria County case No. 05 JA 276 alleging B.B. wa s neglected because the ne wborn’s blood tested positive for the presence of cocaine, and t he minor's env ironment w as injurio us to his w elfare. The pet ition all eged that Bo W. was the father of B.B. On the same date, the State filed a juvenile petition in Peoria County case No. 05 JA 277 allegi ng that B .B.’s sib ling, A. T., was ne glecte d becau se the minor's env ironment was also injurious to her welfare. The petition alleged that A.T.’ s date of birth was May 22, 2003. The State’s petition named Andrew L. as A.T .’s father and named Quinn T. as A.T’s mother. The trial court appointed Floy d Dailey as g

uardian ad litem for the minor children on November 22, 2005. The trial court entered an order for temporary she lter care in both cases on November 22, 2005, pla cing the minors in the tempor

ary custody of Depa rtment of Children a

nd Family Services (DCFS). Mother f ailed to a nswer the petition a

lleging both child

ren wer e negle cted and

subject to an injurious environment. On February 14, 2006, mother failed to appear at the adjudicatory hearing. The court entere d adjudication orders by default finding the minors neglected. On tha t same date, the trial court entered dispositional orders finding that it was in the best interest of the children to make them wards of the court. The court f urther found that mother was dispositionally unfit to care for, prote ct, train, or discipline the minors based on the following3

factor s: (1) minor B.B. was positi ve for c ocaine a

t birth; (2 ) mother' s drug u se; (3) d omestic violence against mother while preg nant with B.B. and in the presence of A.T .; and (4) mother’s lack of “participation” while juvenile petition was pending. In he r absenc e, the jud

ge ord ered mot her to complete va

rious tasks, includi

ng coop erate with DCFS, comply with terms of the servic e plans, and correct the conditions that required removal of the ch ild or risk terminat ion of par ental rig hts. The tr

ial cour t also ord ered DCF S to determine the times and location for supervised visits between mother and the minor c hildren. The trial court scheduled permanency review hearings in both cases for July 11, 2006. The socia l service s casew orker f

iled resp ective p ermane

ncy review hearing

reports with the court on July 11, 2006, recommending that DCFS maintain guardianship of the minors and requiring mother to complete the previously ordered tasks. In the r

eports, the social services caseworker scheduled visits between mother a nd children for one hour per week at e ither the agenc y of fice or out in the c ommunity . Mother a dvised the

caseworker tha

t she coul d not come to the ag ency

office because she fea red that she would

go to jai l becaus e the poli ce would be able to find he r at that l ocation. In April 2006, D CFS discontin ued supe rvised vi sitation du

e to mother’s failure to attend the visits. According to the report submitted to the court on July 11, 2006, mother visited the children once a month at the original foster pa rent’s residence. The report recommended that permanency goal was return home pending status, as mother did not seem to be willing to cooperate with DCFS. Mother failed to appear at the next permanency review hearing on Dece

mber 19, 2006. The social services caseworker filed permanency

review hearing reports on De cember 19, 2006. According to the December 19, 2006, r eport, mother refused to coordinate visits between the4

caseworker and the minor children but was re gularly visiting the children on a weekly basis at the foster parent’s residence since Oc tober 2006. At a case review, the ag ency a dvised the foster parent to restrict visits to only once a week because the juvenile case was proceeding toward terminat ion. On De cember

19, 2006, t

he trial c ourt ente

red per manency review o rders in both cases finding that the original permane ncy g oal of return home had not been achieved. The court adopted the new permanency goal recommendation for substitute care. The court allowed mother’s attorney

to withdraw on December 19, 2006, because mother had not appeared at any court ordered hearings since the shelter care hearing

on November 22, 2005. The next scheduled permanency

review was set for June 12, 2007. Four da ys before t he sch edule d heari ng, DCF S and t he St ate req ueste d the j uveni le jud ge issue pro tective j uvenile warrant s alleg ing that mother a nd the chi ldren’s

foster mother both removed the children from the care of DCFS. On June 8, 2007, the whereabouts of the children were unknown to DCFS caseworkers. The c ourt issued the warrants, but the juvenile court proceedings progre ssed in the absence of the children, foster mother, a nd mother. The socia l service s casew orker f

iled a June

permane ncy review r eport an d addend um. According to the report, the foster mother a dvised the caseworker that mother visited the children "occasionally " at the foster residence. The r eport indicated that mother contacted the casewor ker on May 29, 2007, to schedule a visit through the social services caseworker due to the fact that mother c ould not vis it the chil dren any more at the foster

mother' s reside

nce. DCF S planned

to place the children elsewhere as a result of a foster placement review in May 2007. Thereafter on May 31, 2007, mother ca

ncelled the visit, but on that same day, the social services caseworker found mother at the foster mother's residence when she made an unannounced visit to the5

residence. On June 12, 2007, the trial court entered permanency review orders that adopted the social service agency ’s permanency goal recommendation for substitute care. The trial court found mother failed to make reasonable eff orts to achieve the requirements of the service plan

" even bef ore" (emphasis added) she disappeared with her c hildren and their foster mother. The trial court reserved ruling on the issue of whe ther DCFS made reasonable efforts to ac hieve the permanency

goal of substitute care and the corre sponding service plan. The tria l court or dered D CFS to pre

pare a w ritten re port and a ppear to explain its decision to allow mother to designate the foster mother in question and its decision to thwart Counseling and Family

Services’ attempts to remove the children from the foster mother in May of 2007. The court scheduled a hearing on these issues for August 8, 2007. In the interim, the State filed petitions for termination of pare ntal rights as to each minor on July 27, 2007. According to cour t documents, the whereabouts of both mother and the children remained unknown when the State filed the first termination petition. Count I alleged that mothe

r was an unfit person as def

ined in se ction 1(D )(b) of the Adopt

ion Act (7 50 IL

CS 50/1(D)( b) (West 20 06)) in that she ha d failed to maintai

n a reas onable de gree o f intere st, concern or responsibility

as to the minors' welfare. On August 7, 2007, the trial court conducted a hear ing with DCFS to address the court’s

concer ns. A tran script of

this hear ing is not part of the recor

d on appe al. I

n its writte

n report , DCFS ack

nowledg ed that Cou

nseling and Fam ily S ervice s (Family

Service s) reque sted DCFS to remove the children from the original foster home in late May 2007. The Family Service s caseworker personally

found mother present at the foster parent’s re sidence, after receiving6

information from the police that mother was located at the residenc e. According to the police report, officers found mother at the foster mother 's residence coming out of the showe r, and officers stated that it appeared mother was living there. When the caseworker arr ived at the foster mother's residence, the ca seworker found A.T. play ing outside. A.T. told the caseworker that her mother was there and called to her mother

. In Ma y of 2007, A.T . descri

bed an instance to

the case worker when the child was

fearf ul, and she touched her mother’s foot in bed, finding assur ance and relieving her fe ar. The

caseworker al so learned that mo ther liste d the fost er home a ddress a s her own

persona l home address on her application for assistance with the Depa rtment of Human Services. Further, the

caseworker dis covere d that mothe r was pre gnant w

ith her thi rd child a nd claime d that the

child belonged to B.B.’s dece ased father. Based on mother' s statements, the Family Servic es caseworker concluded mother wa s indeed eight months pregnant. The rep ort prep ared for the judg e’s cons ideration as evide nce that DCFS used

reasona ble efforts indicated that during the initial investigation and foster pla cement review, DCFS did not find any direc

t evidence that mother was living with the foster pare nt and the children. Therefore, the DCFS caseworke r did not have any immediate or urgent safety

concerns surrounding its decision to allow A.T. and B.B. to temporarily remain with the original foster mother. Further, the caseworker explained in the report that DCFS had not implemented a structured visitation schedule with mother and the foster parent could allow mother to visit the children. Howeve r, the re ports also indicate d DCFS ultimately conclude d that the

childre n should be placed in a new foster home. Furthe r, DCFS directed Family

Services to conduct three7

unannounced visits per week to verify that mother was not at the residence. DCFS also directed the social service agency

to immediately remove the c hildren if mother was found at the residence. DCFS sent notification to the foster mother that the children would be removed from the residence. The foster mother appea led the requested removal of the children from he r care. Shortly thereafte

r, mother, the foster mother and the minor children left the State of I llinois. Following the hearing, the trial cour t determined that DCFS made reasonable effor ts toward achievement of the permanency goal of substitute care and the associated se rvice plan. The court held a termination of parental rig hts hearing on September 5, 2007, in the mother a nd childr en’s abs ence. A

t that time, Count I

of the pe titions to te

rminate p arenta

l rights alleged that mother was an unfit person as de fined in section 1(D)(b) of the Adoption Act (750 IL CS 50/1(D) (b) (West

2006)) in that she had faile d to mainta in a rea sonable d

egree of intere st, concern or responsibility

as to the minors’ welfare. Mother failed to appea r for the termination hearing. The appellate rec ord does not contain a transcript of proceeding s from September 5, 2007. On that date, the court entered a defa ult judgment. The order stated that mother receive d notice of the hear ing by publicat ion and fa iled to ap pear. T he court continue d the matte

r to Octob er 24, 2007, for ent ry of order and a b est in teres t heari ng. Seven days later, on September 12, 2007, the State notified the trial court that the protective warrants relating to A.T. a nd B.B., along with a third protective wa rrant for A.T. and B.B.'s sibling, Tomy, had been served in Florida. Accor ding to the contents of the social services caseworker’s permanenc

y review r

eport dated November 27, 2007, Florida Child Welfare Se rv ic es lo ca te d t he mi no r c hi ld re n i n P ut na m C ou nt y, F lo ri da , o n S ep te mb er 7, 20 07 , t wo da ys after the termination hearing in I llinois.8

Illinois social service repre sentatives traveled to Florida and returned the c hildren to the State of Illinois on September 10, 2007. The social service caseworker’s report dated Nove mber 27, 2007, described the condition of the children when the Florida Child Welfare Services located the two children. According to the re port, the children were covered with sca bbed and oozing bumps believed to be flea bites. In a conversation with the I llinois Counseling and Family Service s caseworker, mother revealed her plan to avoid required ser vices in Illinois because she wante d the original foster mother, whom she described as the children's godmother, to adopt the children. Once the children were adopted, mother planned to move awa y with both the children and the a doptive foster mother so that mother could raise the children without State intervention. According to the same report dated N ovember 27, 2007, mother also stated that three day s after a

rriving in Florid a, she g ave birt

h to a chil d she name d Tomy . Mother u sed a fa lse name at the hospital. Mother tested positive for marijuana at the time of Tomy ’s birth, and the hospital c alled Fl orida ch ild servic es. Howe

ver, ac cording

to the mothe

r, child s ervice s in Florida did not take the minor into custody. Mother acknowledged to the casewor ker that she moved the

childre n from home to home w

hile in Fl orida. Mo ther indic ated tha t she dec ided to return to Illinois to visit her family and left the children with the foster mother in Florida. While in Illinois, mot

her lea rned tha t Florida social se rvices c ontacte d family

members i

n Florida looking for the children. I n response, mother contacted the foster mother, who re mained in Florida with the children, and instructed her to take the childre n to a new location. Further, mother admitted to the social services caseworker tha t she saw her children on a daily basis when they were in foster care in Illinois, beginning in August 2006, and that she stay ed with the9

children on a regular basis afte r October 2006. On October 1, 2007, mother appeared in open cour t for the first time since November 22, 2005. The trial judge vacated the defa ult order regarding fitness f or failing to maintain a reasonable degree of

interest, concern or responsibility as to the minors’ welfare. After vacating the default orde r, the judge continued the cause to October 22, 2007, for an appearance on mother’s answer to the July 2007 petition to terminate parental rights. The trial court appointed Louis Milot as counsel to act on behalf of mother. The trial court also appointed and named Louise Natonek a s guardian ad litem for the minor children. Thereafter, on October 3, 2007, the State filed suppleme ntal petitions for termination of parental rights which alleged tha t mother failed to make reasonable progr ess toward the return of the minors during any

nine-month period after the end of the initial nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect, being Nove mber 14, 2006, to August 14, 2007, in violation of section 1(D)(m)(iii) of the Adoption Act (750 I LCS 50/1(D)(m)(iii) (West 2006)). Mother filed written answers to the supplemental petitions to terminate parental rights on October 22, 2007. Again, the trial court appointed Louise Natone k as guardian ad litem for the minor children. The court set a trial on the petitions to terminate mother’s parental rights for Apr il 16, 2008. The social services caseworker filed permanency

review hearing reports with the cour t on December 11, 2007. The social service c aseworker’s permanency hearing review report filed December 11, 2007, stated that B.B. experienc ed behavioral issues upon his return from Florida and that B .B. had a

lot of trou

ble adjus ting to hi s new pla cement. B.B. a

cted out w

ith tantru ms and screaming fits, and banging his head on the floor. B.B. constantly wanted to eat food. Over time, B.B.’s behavior dramatically improved. The report stated that A.T. also experienced10

behavior al proble ms when sh e retur

ned to Illinois. Ac cording to the re port, fos ter par

ents observe d A.T. g

rabbing household

items and c arry

ing out dr ug-re lated be

havior c onsistent w

ith the motion necessary

to roll cannabis joints. Further, the report stated that A.T. beg an acting out in the new foster home. A.T. was bonded to her mother and wa s used to being with her mother and seeing her mother on a reg ular basis. The report indicated the following: "I t will take a long time for [A.T.’s]*** behavior to adjust to a structured environment and she may always nee d therapy to deal with issues of l oss and aband onment." The trial court conducted a permanenc y review he aring and entered a per manency r

eview order regarding

both minor children on December 11, 2007. Attorney Floyd Dailey

appeared as guardian ad litem for the minor children. The appellate recor d does not include a transcript of these pr oceedin gs. The printed, written order fo

und that mo ther had

not partic ipated in

service s, was living with the minors in secret, and fled with the minors to the State of Florida. The c ourt maintaine d the per

manency goal of substitute

care pe nding the court’s decision with reg ard to termination. On April 16, 2008, the trial court conducted a hearing on the petitions for termination of mother’s parenta l rights. The State

voluntar ily d ismissed c ount I

of the pe titions to te

rminate parental rights. At this time, Nicholas Owens, assistant public defender, a ppeared as guardian ad litem for children on April 16, 2008. At the conclusion of the evidence, the tria l court stated that mother did

not comple

te servic es when t

he goa l was ret urn home, and mothe

r did not c omplete any service s after t

he goa l was cha nged to substitute

care. T he court noted tha t mother ha

d little contact, if any , with the children’s caseworker for a substantial period of time. The court further found she did not coo

perate with DCFS a

nd she did n

ot make pr

ogress toward r eunific ation with11

reg ard to eit her of t he m in ors . Th ere for e, t he t ria l co urt fou nd m ot her unf it as a ll ege d i n co unt III of the pe titions to te

rminate p arenta

l rights. Count II of

B.B.'s petition alleged that putative f ather, Bo W., was now deceased. Count II of A.T.'s petition alleged that putative father, Andrew L., failed to maintain a r easonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the minor's welfare. The trial cour t entered written orders finding that the State’s evidence satisfac torily proved counts I

I and I II of both petitions for terminat ion of par ental rig hts by clear a nd convincing ev

idence. The tria

l court or dered D CFS to prepare a best interest hearing report and scheduled a best interest hearing for May 28, 2008. Trial judge later reset the hear ing to July 7, 2008. The social services caseworker filed permanency

review hearing reports on May 27, 2008. Acc ording t

o the rep ort, polic e arre sted mothe r on two oc casions d

uring the repor

ting time period. Police arrested mother for possession of canna bis in February

2008. Police found cannabis in a motor vehicle in which mother was riding. Police ar rested mother for aggr

avated battery in April 20 08. According to police r eports, mother str

uck another fema

le in the f ace with a beer can and continued to strike the fema le after she fell to the ground. Mother admitted to the

caseworker tha

t she struc

k the female but de

nied drin king alc ohol. The

State did not file criminal charges aga

inst mother. The social service caseworker’ s report documented that mother completed an intake in December 2007 but did not begin substance abuse and alcohol treatment until March 2008 and had been attending substance a buse and alcohol treatment since that time. The trial court entered permanency review orders on May

27, 2008, finding that the permanency goal an d servic e plan ha

d not been

achieve d becau se the mother faile d to make r easonab le efforts to complete the service plan tasks with one exception. The court noted that mother complied12

with the service plan tasks beginning afte r the State initiated termination proceedings. On July 7, 2008, the trial court conducted a be st interest hearing on the July 2007 supplemental petitions to terminate parental rights. The social service s caseworker prepared best interest hearing court reports and a ddendums for the trial court to consider. Jonna Ty ler of the Antioch Group prepared the bonding asse ssment. At the hea

ring, the State a

dmitted int

o evidenc e mother

's medic al records mark

ed Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 contained Methodist Medical Center medical records rega rding mother's medical

tr ea tm en t r ec ei ve d a s a ch il d, in cl ud in g t re at me nt of a l ac er at ed wr is t a nd ch es t, fo ot in ju ry, diarrhea, dog bite, and a repor t that mother was the victim of sexual abuse by a biological parent. Exhibit 1 also contained Methodist Medical Center records dated May 31, 2006, regarding an emergency

room visit for anxiety-related sy mptoms due to stress that showed mother positive for cocaine and cannabis, and medical re cords dated September 15, 2007, regar ding an emergency room visit in which police brought mother to hospital due to uncontrollable and combative behavior and intoxication. Also included was an emergency room visit for neck pain on September 21, 2007, in which mother indicated that she consumed alcohol on September 20, 2007, and an emergency

room visit on October 5, 2007, in which mother was intoxicated and combative. The State also called Bradley Scott, a Peoria police officer, who testified that on October 6, 2007, at approximately 1:30 a.m., he investiga ted a fight involving mother’s brother. The officer observed the mother of A.T. and B .B. to be highly agitated while she tried to push past the officer and agg

ressively appr

oached another person in police custody . Ultimately, officers placed mother in a squad car to subdue her. Scott also testified that on November 10, 2007, he ha d13

contact with mother during a traffic stop and found he r to be uncooperative, agitated, and intoxicated. The State offered no other evidence. Mother' s attorne

y c alled Ka

ren Tobia s to testif

y. T obias sai d that she

was cur rently assigne d as the min

ors’ Coun seling a

nd Family

Service s casew orker a

nd had be en involve d with the case since November 2005. She prepar ed a best interest hearing repor t for the court. Tobias stated that since the time she completed the best interest report for the c ourt’s consideration, mother had begun domestic violence classes and a lso had scheduled a psy

chological examination for July 30, 2008. Tobias testified that she observed visits between mother and the minors. Tobias said that the minors were happy

to see their mother. According to Tobias, A.T. will usually cry for several minutes and cling to her mother at the end of eac h visit. Visits occurred only once pe r month, and she indicated that the behavior was not unusual for children in f oster care. Tobias explained that the minors had been in current foster care placement for almost 10 months. She also testified that mother completed inpatient substance abuse treatment and was

curren tly e nrolled in an afte r-car e prog ram but still needed to complete domestic violence counseli ng. Tobi as testif

ied that prior to Ma

y 20 08 mother

did not com

plete re quested d

rug tes ts but had submitted to random drug tests with clean results since May 2008, missing only one drug test. Tobias explained that she was working with mother on these tasks in relation to another child, Tom

y, b orn to moth er in Florida. Ac cording to Childre

n’s Home syst

em of ca re report, Tomy is currently

placed in the same foster home as A.T. and B.B

. Following the testimony of Tobias, mother testified. She stated that A.T. was five y ears old and A.T. had lived with her during the first 2 1⁄2 y ears of A.T.’s life. Mother explained that14

B.B. was 2 1⁄2 y

ears old. Mother said that she visited the minors regularly after they

were taken into protective custody. She admitted that she we nt to Florida in June 2007 and took both A.T. and B.B. with her. She acknowledg ed that taking the children to Florida was not a good idea and that she regretted doing so. Mother said that she was involved with services now and that she only had a fe w servic es left to

complete . Mother e

xplained that it took he

r a while to become involved in services because she was drinking a lot and she did not know how to cope with her children being in foster care. She wa s also upset by the death of B.B.'s father. Mother testified that she now understood that her children needed he r. She had made mistakes in the past but now she was willing to turn her life around in order to g et her children back. Mother testified that she had not consumed any alcohol in the past couple of months. She said that she knew that her children had a bond with her bec ause of the way they touched he

r and interacted with her. The affection of he r children made her feel rea lly good. She said that she would do whatever she needed to do so that all her children c ould return to her home. Mother testified that she was employ ed and that she currently

lived with her own mother. She ackn owledg ed that he

r own mothe

r had bee n involved

with DCFS a

nd that it would be wi se to find alternative housing but that she found it hard to find housing at the time. She asked the court to not terminate her parental rights. She said that she loved he r children, and they

loved her. Mother proc laimed tha t she was t

ry ing, tha t she had c

hange d her life , and that

she was a better person. Mother believed that she could now take c are of her children. In response to questions from the g uardian ad litem , Nicholas Owens, mother acknowledged that she had taken the c hildren without permission to the State of Florida, along with the children’s foster mother at the time. She testified she did not have a plan at the time she15

left. They he aded to Florida, she said, because B.B .'s father had family there. When she arrived in Florida, she gave birth to her baby , Tomy. She then contacte d Bo's family , and she and the childre n stay ed with dif

ferent family members a

t differ ent loca tions. Moth er said, at some po int, she retu rned to I llinois but she left the minors in Florida . She state d that she did not re

turn to Florida because the Flor ida case worker s locate d the chil dren and returne d the chil dren to I llinois. The guardian ad litem did not present any e vidence and did not file a report with the trial court prior to the best interest hearing. Nicholas Owens, who was acting as the children’s guardian ad litem for pu rpose s of th e term inati on hea ring, a dvis ed the court the fo llow ing:

"The purpose of these hearing s is not the best interest of the parents but instead it 's the be st intere st of the c hildren. I g

uess I will be br

ief in only saying tha

t in all of this time the evidence and the report indicates that for the majority of it nothing wa s done at all. The fact that she experienced the same thing herself I

don't think makes that better. I think there was an understanding of the situation while it was going on. While it's not necessarily

all a product of her not try ing to want to be with her kids, she was I think awa

re of wh at she ne eded to do the entir e time. So, in the bes t interest of the children, I ha ve no choice but to agree with the State’s position.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the State reque sted the trial court terminate mother’s parental rights. The trial court stated that it considered a ll of the evidence presented, together with the be st in teres t repo rt, at tached docum ents a nd th e bond ing ass essme nt. Th e tria l jud ge said that it was clear that the minors were bonded to their mother. Howe ver, mother had a long1 The record shows the permanency goal for Tomy

was different from that for A.T. and B.B. However, Tom y resided with the s ame foster fam ily hoping to adopt A.T. and B.B. 16 history of not coopera

ting with DCFS and its designees. The trial court stated that mother ha d a long history of substanc e abuse. Further, the trial judge state d that mother did not follow court orders. The judge emphasized that mother took the children to the State of F lorida without the court’s permission and once in Florida, she exposed the children to an unstable e nvironment. The tria l court a cknowle dged th at mother was cur rently particip ating in

service s but those

se rv ic es re la te d t o h er ot he r c hi ld , T om y. 1 The cour t found tha

t mother st

ill did not ha

ve a stab le life or a stable environment for the minors and would not provide any type of stability

for A.T. and B.B. The trial judge found by

clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interest of each of the minors that parental rights be ter minated. The court entered a written order terminating mother’s parental rights as to both minor children, a s well as terminating the rights of A.T.'s father . The cou

rt also changed

the permanency

goal to a doption. Mother file d a timely notice of appeal on July 14, 2008, in both juvenile case s. On appeal, the two juvenile cases were consolidated. ANA LYSIS On appea l, mother d

oes not challeng e the tria

l court' s finding

of her c ontinued u

nfitness in the context of the termination proceedings. However, mother c laims that the trial court erred in finding that the best interests of the children supported the termination of her parental rights. Tempt ing as i t may be to focus on wha t a pare nt has done w rong, a t the b est in teres t stage of the te rmination procee dings, the court m ust select the appr

oach tha t best provides for the17

child’s w ell-bein

g withou t adopting

a view a imed towa

rd punishi

ng the p arent’ s transg

ressions

. The purpose of the best interest hearing is to minimize further damage to the child. It is w ell settle d that the

best inter est hear ing shif ts the scr utiny of the co urt to the b est interest of the child. In re D.T. , 212 Ill. 2d 347, 363-64 (2004). To accomplish this goa l, our lawmakers allow for the safeg uard provided by

an appointed guardian ad litem , who is dut y bound to zea

lously repres ent the in

terests o f the chi ldren at

all stag es of the

juvenile procee dings, but especially whe

n the biological family

bonds are at the crossroads of termination. When revi ewing a

trial cou rt's de terminat ion that it i s in a child

's best i nterest t o termina te parental rights, a reviewing court will apply the manife st weight of the evidence standard. In re R.L. , 352 Ill. App. 3d 985, 1001 ( 2004); In re D.M. , 298 Ill. App. 3d 574, 581 (1998). A determination will b e found to be aga inst the ma

nifest we ight of t

he evide nce only if the opp osite conclusion is clearly e

vident or the determination is unreasonable, arbitrary , or not based on the evidence presented. In re D.F. , 201 Ill. 2d 476, 498 (2002). A trial court's determination will be given g reat deference bec ause the trial court is in the best position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses. In re D.M. , 298 Ill. App. 3d at 581. A reviewing court, therefor e, must not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court regar ding the credibi lity

of witnes ses, the w eight to be give n to the ev

idence, or the inf

erence s to be drawn. In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d at 498, citing, In re A.P. , 179 Ill. 2d 184, 204 (1997). First, we note that the trial judge measured the e vidence by a

clear and convincing standard rather than the required pre ponderance of the evidence standa rd. Even though the court held the State to a higher standard of proof, with this preponde rance standard in mind, we examine whether the court’s best interest findings were against the manifest weight of the18

evidence presented to the court at the best intere st hearing. It is important to understand that our review i s not de novo but is restricted to evaluating the factual basis for the c ourt’s stated findings and conclusions. The extra ordinar y de cision to te

rminate p arenta

l rights i s gover

ned by the inter relation ship of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 IL CS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2006)) and the Adoption Act (750 IL CS 50/1 et seq. (West 2006)). First, the State must establish that a parent is unfit as def in ed i n t he A dop ti on A ct. 705 ILCS 405 /2 -29 (W est 200 6); 750 ILCS 50/ 1(D ) (W est 200 6). If the trial court finds a parent to be unfit as defined by the Adoption Act, the interests of the parent and child diverge. At this point in the juvenile proceedings, the c ourt must decide, based on the evidence presented, whether it is in the best interests of the minor to terminate parental rights. 705 I LCS 405 /2-29(2)

(West 2006 ); In re D.T. , 212 Ill. 2d 347, 352 (2004). The lawmakers created a two-step process that must be honored. A finding of parental unfitness at the termination stage does not automatically trigger an end to the mother-c hild relationship and termination should not be viewed as a foregone c onclusion by the State. The State was required to prove , by a preponde rance of the evidence, that A.T.’s a nd B.B.’ s best inte

rests just ified ter mination of

the child ren’s r elationsh ip with the ir mother . Due to the definitions within the Juvenile Court Act, the best interest determination is not an easy ta sk. Prior to termination, the best interests of a child require that no less than eight fa ctors “shall be considered in the context of the child’s age and deve lopmental needs.” 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2006). The statutory fa ctors include: (1) the child’s phy sical safety a nd welfare; (2) the development of the child’s identity; (3) the child’s familial, cultural and religious backg round; (4) the child’s sense of attachment, including love, security , familiarity, continuity

of relationships19

with parent figures; (5) the child’s wishes and goals; (6) community ties; (7) the child’s ne ed for permane nce; (8) the unique

ness of e very family and eve ry child; (9) the risks r

elated to substitute care; and (10) prefere

nces of the person available to care f or the child. 705 IL CS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2006). At the best interest stage of termination, the State is required to prove by a preponde

rance of the evidence that it is in the child's best interest to terminate pare ntal rights. In re R.L. , 352 I ll. App. 3d at 1001 , citi ng In re D.T. , 338 Ill. App. 3d 133, 154 (2003), aff’d , 212 Ill. 2d 347 (2003). In this case, the judge

focused on only two fa

ctors and did not articulate his view of any of the remaining statutory

factors. On July 9, 2008, in the dispositional order terminating parental rights, the judg e did not ma ke speci fic findi

ngs of f act, and the tran scripts of

the proc eeding s did not include the judge’s pronouncement reg arding numerous statutory factors. We view the judge’s resolution of eight factors a s neutral, neither for nor against termination. The cour t’s findin gs reli ed heavily o

n the cons ideration of two sta tutory factor s, specifically, the

children’s sense of attachment, including love, sec urity, familiarity

, continuity of relationships with parent figures as required by section 1-3(4.05)(d) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 IL CS 405/1-3(4.05)(d) (West 2006)) and the children’s need for pe rmanence as required by section 1-3(4.05)(g) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 I LCS 405/1-3(4.05)(g) (West 2006)). Mother testified during the best interest hearing that after the court removed the children fro m h er c are , sh e vi si ted her chi ld ren fre que nt ly an d re si ded wit h t hem at t he f ost er h ous eho ld . It is not disputed that mother also had frequent contact with the children after f leeing to Florida. Mother also testified that she loves her children and has made prog ress in the three months since the first stage of the termination process beg an with the fitness hearing that occurre d on April 16,20

2008. The

court ac knowledg ed that mo ther had made re cent pro gress i

nitiated a fter he r return to Illinois in September of 2007. We commend the court for ordering the pre paration of a bonding assessment, sua sponte, and over the State ’s objection. The s ocial se rvice r eports a nd the Stat

e’s testi monial evidence d

id not include any indication that DCFS or a social services caseworker obser ved these children interact with their mother. In fa ct, the DCFS placement review summary dated May 9, 2007, informed the court that prior to May of 2007, Ms. Tobias failed to observe any visitations between mother and children contrary to DCFS policies. The bonding assessment, ordered by the court and prepared by a licensed clinical professional counselor in this case, was a neutral and pr ofessional report. The detailed report included both relevant and reliable information ga thered from standardized tests and the personal observations of the clinician. The bonding assessment indicated that both childre n shared a healthy pare

nt-child bond at the time of the report. The court ordere d repo rt des cribed moth er's conduct during a visit with the children and concluded that mother’s a pproach to her children was genuine and authentic. The assessment stated that mother de monstrated strength in areas of nurturance, challenge, structure and engageme nt. The court carefully

articulated on the record that the children remained very bonded to their mother in this case. This finding is well supported by the rec ord. Next, the court considered the children’s need for pe rmanence. 705 IL

CS 405/1- 3(4.05)(g) (West 2006). The State’s evidence on this issue involved the introduction of medical record s showing

mother’s continue d alcohol

use. The State also

called a police of ficer a s a witness who described contacts with mother when she was both ag itated and intoxicated.21

The court also noted the children did not enjoy a stable lifestyle onc e they left the State of Illinois. The trial judge stated that mother’s r ecent progress as to A.T. and B .B. was too uncertain to ensure long-term stability for these two minor children based on her past poor performance and lack of motivation. Thus, the trial court c orrectly weighed this factor in support of termination on the record. Based on the circ umstances of this case, we cannot disagre e with the court’s assessment that mother was unlikely to provide long-term stability f or the children absent some remarkable change in he r level of cooperation and personal motivation. Therefore, considering the statutory factors, the record sugg ests only one fac tor, the children’s need for stability , weighed in favor of termination, while all other fa ctors were either overlook ed, neutr ally assesse d, or, in the case o f the chi ldren’s bonds to the ir mother , weighed in favor of postponing termination. Next, we examine the temporal considerations contained in subsection 1(D)(m)(iii) of the Adoption Act selected by the State as the proper basis for the termination of this mother’s parenta l rights. Count III of the State’s supplemental petitions for termination of pa rental rights charged that mother failed to make reasonable prog ress toward the return of the minors during anyninemonth per

iod afte r the end of the init

ial nine- month per

iod follow

ing the a djudicat ion of neg

lect, being November 14, 2006, to August 14, 2007, in violation of section 1(d)(m)( iii) of the Adoption Act (750 IL CS 50/1(D)(m)(iii) (West 2006)). This subsection of the Act serves to postpone termination proceedings for 18 months following the date of the dispositional adjudication of neglect, which in this case occurre d on February 14, 2006. The commonsense explanation for this f airly long sta tutory transitional peri od may

also22

relate t o the best interest s of the children. Children maintain st rong a ttachmen ts to their parents , even in the face

of both ne glect a

nd physical ab

use. I n theory , A.T.’s a nd B.B. ’s 18-mon

th transition period should have started on February 14, 2006, after the finding of negle ct. However, the original foster placement approved by DCFS was both seriously flawed and unstable. In April of 2006, just two m onths after t he determina tion of di spositi onal unfit ness, DCFS suspended i ts role to s upervise vi sits betw een this mo ther and her young child ren. In April, DCFS delega ted the r esponsibi lity

of super vising vi sits to the f

oster pa rent by allowing all visits betwee n the chil dren and

their mother to occ

ur at the foster home. As su

ch, DCFS a

nd its des ign ees di d no t p ers ona ll y obs erv e, a ss ess or m oni to r th e vi si ts or m ot her ’s p are nt in g sk il ls . It is undisput

ed that mo ther did not attend the sche duled visi

ts to be sup ervised

by D CFS. Nonethe less, the

court ma intained a “retu rn home” permane ncy goal fr om Novemb er 2005 u

ntil December 19, 2006. The permanency

hearing review reports re veal that under the foster mother’s guidanc e, the children enjoye d monthly visits with their mother. Weekly visits began sometime between the July permanency

review and the December per manency r

eview date in 2006. In spite of incr eased unsupervised visitation between mother and her children, the re cord shows that the permanency goal changed to su bstitut e care on December 1 9, 2006. Du ring that sam e time perio d, a DCFS worker advised the original foster mother tha t the case was headed toward termination. On May 23, 2007, 17 months after DCFS placed the children with the original foster mother, a nd near t he end of an 18-mon

th transit ion perio d for moth er to mak e reasonable pr

ogress towards reunification, the children’s stability once again bega

n to crumble. In May

of 2007,23

Co un se li ng an d F am il y Se rv ic es re ce iv ed in fo rm at io n o f p os si bl e d ru g u se by foster mother and requested foster mother submit to a drug test. Foster mother wa s previou sly

tested a nd found to be positive for drug use one y ear earlier, in the spring of 2006. DCF S also began to suspect mother was spending much more time at the foster home than c ontemplated by the ser vice plan. In May of 2007, the police notified Counseling and Family Services that an officer investigating a bad check found mother showering at the foster mother's r esidence. Moreover, A.T. desc ribed an incident to a case worker in May of 2007 a

nd the det ails of the child’s r eport to her caseworker sugg ested that mother and A.T. were sleeping in the sa me bed at the foster residence. Thereafter, dur ing an unannounced visit, the children’s casewor ker also observed mother at the foster mother’s residence and c oncluded mother was approximately e ight months along in a new pregnanc

y. DCFS was pre

viously unaware

of mother’s pregnancy . Within days of the unannounced visit, the children were missing, along with their foster mother and mother. The court issued a protective warrant for the r eturn of the children on June 8, 2007. However, the warrants were not served until mid-September of 2007. The court was justifiably c oncerned about the removal of the minors from the State of Illinois due to the cooperative eff orts of the foster mother and mother. On the juvenile judge’ s

own mo tion , the c ourt o rdered DCFS t o file a stat us rep ort ex plain ing th e situ ation and th e judge scheduled a hearing on the issue for A ugust 7, 2007. According to the status report prepa red by DCFS for the court, following its initial investigation, DCFS could not find any immediate or urgent safety

concerns associated with the original foster mother. The children were not immediate ly r

emoved a nd place d in anothe

r foster household

while the foster mother's

drug te st was bein g proc essed. H owever , DCFS inte nded to change the childr en's fo ster ca

re plac ement in24

June 2007. The foster mother appealed that decision, and DCFS had not completed the a ppeal process when the foster mother and mother fled with the c hildren. In light of these unusual circ umstances, it is not surprising that the children were bonded to their mother at the time of the best interest hearing. The first nine months, following the ninemonth period after dispositional unfitness, was a period of time when mother and the foster mother acted together, without discovery or intervention from DCFS, to maintain an unlimited and unsupervised relationship between mother and her c hildren. This was not what our legislators inten ded to occur d uring t he 18 m onth s foll owing a n adju dicat ory order b y the court findi ng a parent t o be dispos itionally

unfit, an d immediat

ely preced ing the St ate’s pe tition to te

rminate parenta l rights p ursuant t o section 1(D)(m) (iii) of the Adoption Act (75 0 ILCS 50/1(D) (m)(iii) (West 2006). By all acc ounts, beg

inning in June 2007, D CFS lost all contact with the min

or childr en, in part, because the foster

mother did not cooperate with DCFS and helped remove the childre n from the state without permission. Normally, when a mother flees the State of Illinois, the children remain sa fely protect ed in suita

ble foste r place ment. How ever, in stead of growin g geo graph

ically distanced from their mother, who fled the State, these children de parted with their mother and continued their strong maternal bonds. We cannot condone the f oster mother and mother’s combined actions, nor do we fully comprehend the long-term inattentiveness of DCFS to the negative circumstances of the c hildren in their first foster home. Here, many

factors worked against cre ating a stable environment for the children. A true protective foster care placeme nt did not begin for the children until after DCFS placed A.T. a nd B.B. wi th the sec ond foste

r family in mid-Sep tember o f 2007. At the time of

the best in

terest25

hearing, A.T. and B.B. were five and two y ears old, respectively . Even though more than 2 1⁄2 years tra nspired after the shelter care he aring took place in November of 2005, the childre n had only been sepa

rated from their mother on an effective ba sis for 10 months, after placement with a second foster family

. In those 10 months, mother was employ ed, completing services related to a third child, and struggling to maintain a drug- free and alcohol-free life style without supportive social service s relating to these children because of the change of permanenc y goa ls. Meanwhile, the children struggled with se

paration from the ir mother and once again f ound thems elves ad

justing to monthly visits with their mother for a second time in their short lives. Ther e were times of signific ant emotional resp onses fr om the chi ldren wh en they were c alled upon to leave their mother at the end of each visit. It does not matter where the fault is assigned for the flawed foster situation or the instability that did not subside for the children while in foster c are. The original placement ca used the children to share an uninterrupted relationship with their mother, and it is in this context the court should have viewed the evidence. Ter minating the children’s relationship with their mother 10 months after ef

fective removal from her control c reated an unnec essarily

accele rated time table for these young

children. This mother’s ability to sustain long-term pr ogress is less than certain even with the proper supportive structure and scrutiny from DCFS. However, the juvenile judge should have f ocused on whether continued restricted contact with their mother wa s necessary for the children to avoid feeli ng a sen se of ab andon ment, confu sion , or in evita ble cri sis. We con clude the tr ial j udge overlooked the fact that the children’s bonds to their mother continued a nd may have g

rown26

stronge r due to th e mismana

ged first place

ment. After considering the legislative timeline that governs the fitness issue in this case, the unique facts, the undisputed strong mutual bonds between mother and childre n, and the minimal evidence presented by

the State during the best interest hearing, we conclude that the trial court’s best interest finding, while well-intended, was contrar y to the manifest weig

ht of the evidence and cannot stand. Therefore, we re mand the matter to the trial court to set a permanency review hearing on an expedited basis and develop an appr opriate service plan for these y oung children, who remain simultaneously bonded to both their mother a nd their second foster family

. The judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is reversed.

Reverse d and remanded wi th direc tions. McDADE, P.J. and O’BRIEN, J., concur.