FIFTH DIVISION March 4, 2011

No. 1-10- 2563 In re ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of WIL LIA M H., ) Co o k C o un t y. ) Mi nor Respondent-Appel

le e ) ) (The Peo ple of the Stat e of Ill in ois, ) No. 09 JA 906 ) Petitioner-A

ppelle e, ) ) v. ) ) Dorothy H., ) T he Ho no r ab le ) Ro ber t Ba lano ff, Res ponde nt-A ppel l an t). ) Judg e Pres i di ng.

PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEFI TZ GE RA

LDSM ITH

de l i v ered th e j udgm

en t of th e c our t, w i th op inion. Jus t ices H ow se a nd E pst ein co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON Responden

t-appellant Doro thy H. (responden t) appeals f

rom orders entered by

the trial court i n the i nstant ca use adj udgi ng m i nor res ponde nt-ap pel l ee W i l l i am H. (W i l l i am or mi nor) a war d o f the co ur t and ho lding t hat re aso nable effo rt s had been mad e t o p re vent or elimi nat e t he ne ed fo rr emo va l o f t he mino rfr o m t he ho me. Sh e c o nt en ds o n app ea l t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in bot h t hese findings; she a sks t hat we r ever se t he co ur t 's o rd er adjud ging t he minor a wa rd of t he court and that we rem

and the caus e for a new h earin g. The State and the mi

nor's pub li

c guardia n ha ve filed ap pe llee s' b r iefs . Fo rt he fo llo win g r ea so ns, we affir m.No. 1-10- 2563

1 Mr . S. is no t a p ar t y t o t his a pp ea l. 2 William' s fo st er fat he r , Mr . M. , is a lso t he bio lo gic al fa t he ro f William' s ha lf-s ist er , Va ler ie M. Va l erie M. re sideswi

th Mr. M ., and not wi

th res ponde nt (her b i ologi

cal mother). 3 Jud ge D ickler had o rd er ed a menta l health a sses sment of r esp ond ent dur ing t he proceedin gs bef ore her. The assess

me nt found that respondent was n ot em pathetic toward her chi ldren, could not be so em pathetic, and m

ay have "borderli

ne ch aracteristi cs." It was concl uded t ha t r es po nd en t co uld no t pr o vid e a sa fe e nvir o nme nt fo rWilliam. 2 BACK GROUND Wi l l i am was b orn on A

ugust 7, 2002, to responde nt (his bi ological mother) and M

r. S. (his b i ologi

cal f athe r). 1 Pr io rt o t he inst an t ca us e, r es po nd en t an d M r . S. we r e in vo lve d in proce ed i n gsb ef oreJudg e G

ra ce Di ck l er i n th e dom esti c rel ati on s d i v i si on of th e C ook C oun

ty ci rcuit court. Wi

ll ia m h ad not li ved wi th respondent si

nce 2007; he resi

ded wi th Mr. S. for a time , wa s p lac ed wit h t he M. fa mily, a f o st er fa mily, 2 for 20 mo nt hs fro m Oct obe r 2 007 t hro ugh J une 2009, and was then

returned to Mr. S.'s care. However, in August 2009, when

Wi ll ia m was seven years old , Mr . S . w as se nt ence d t o fo ur years in priso n. I lli nois D epa rt ment o f Children a nd Fam il y Servi ces (DCFS) inv

estigato r Caro li

na Bono was assigned to Wil li am' s case. On August 26, 200 9, base d o n Mr. S. 's incar cer at ion and co ncer n ove r r esp ond ent 's ment al healt h, 3 Judge Dickl er or dered DCFS t o t ake custo dy of W il li am, who was then placed once again with the M. f am i l y . In Oc tobe r 20 09, the

State f i l ed a p eti ti on f or ad j udi ca ti on of wa rds hi p a nd a m oti on f or temporary custo dy, thereb y i ni tiatin g the in stant cause. The petition alle ged that Will ia m wasNo. 1-10- 2563

3

neglec t ed d ue t o a n injuriou s enviro nment a nd abu sed due t o s ubst ant ial risk o f inj ur y. The pet itio n cite d r esp ond ent 's hist or y of alco hol abu se a nd ment al ill ness, Mr. S. 's incar cer at ion, and both p aren

ts' pri or in

dicated r eports wh ere i t was determ

i ne d, f oll owi ng i nv esti gation, tha

t there was credi ble evi dence of abuse or negl

ect. Regardin

g these reports, t he peti

tion noted that respondent had two prior in dic ated repor ts for substanti al risk of phy sical in jury due to inj urious env ironm ent and f or medical

negl ect, whil e Mr. S. had four pri or indi cated report s f

or substantial risk o f physical inj ur y due t o injur iou s enviro nment. The pet itio n also des cr ibed t hat re spo ndent had b een di

agnosed wi

th bi polar di sorder and mood dis order, t hat respondent adm itted she h

as bipo lar d isor der , a nd t hat she st at ed s he has been r efusing t o t ake her medicat ion fo r o ver one year. On No vember 3, 200 9, a te mpor ary cust od y hearing was held. Bo no, Wil li am's DCFS in vestigator , testifi

ed that, as part o f h

er in vestigation, she

verifi ed respondent's pri

or indi cated re po rt s as w ell as re spo ndent 's medica l asses sment t hat had be en o rd er ed by Ju dge Dickler . T he as se ss men t wa s a lso int r o du ce d in t o ev ide nc e. I n t he as se ss men t , it wa s fo un d, t o a r ea so na ble de gre e of ps ych i atri c c erta i nty , th at: r es pon dent h asa h i story of depre ss i on, pos si

bl y bor deri ng on bipo lar d isor der ; she ha s a hist or y of alco hol abu se a nd a p at t er n of u nst able re latio nships; she does n ot understan

d Wi l l i am 's ne eds ; a nd h er ab i l i ty to par en t and nur ture W i l l i am i s m i ni mal . Bo no fu rt her t est ifi

ed t hat she met wit h re spo ndent as p ar t of he r invest igat ion. Resp ond ent ad m i tted to B ono th

at she ha d b een d i agnos ed wi th bi pol ar d i sorder an d s he rec ei ve d m edi ca ti on f or th i s; h owe v er , s h e state d th

at sh e cur re n tl y di d n ot s uf f er f rom i t b ut on l y f rom an an x i ety dis order. Respondent also told Bono that, whil e she h ad a prior alcohol addi

ction, she had b eenNo. 1-10- 2563

4

so ber for t he last t wo years . B ono aver re d t hat , fo llowing her inter view o f resp ond ent , she ob tai n ed re cordsf rom re sp on den

t' s l oca l pol i ce de pa rtm en t sh owi n g s ev eral pol i ce re sp on se s to her hom e for domestic vi

olen ce between res

pondent and h

er current husba

nd, and n ot in g that re spo ndent was into xicat ed o n seve n oc cas ions in 20 09. Finally , B ono t est ifi

ed t hat , ba sed on t he i nf orm ati on s he ha d ga the red , al ong wi th th e f ac t tha t W i l l i am ha d n ot be en wi th res pon dent f or o ve rt wo yea r s, she wa s c o nc er ne d t ha t William w o uld be at r isk sho uld he be pla ce d in resp onde nt' s ca re. Re sp o nd en t als o t es t ified at t he t emp o r ar y cu st o dy h ea r ing . Sh e s t at ed t ha t she is currently under the care of a doctor who moni to rs her m

edi cation m

anagem ent and that she s ees h i m ev er y two to th re e m on th s. She te sti

f i ed th at sh e is c

ur re n tl y on med i ca ti on f or a n an x i ety disorder and that she i s wil li ng to do what ever she needs to regain custo dy of W il liam. On crossexam in ation, respondent den

ie d the existence of an

y dom estic v iolence b etween her an

d her current husba

nd. She av

erred that she rem

em bered the poli

ce comi ng to her home f

our t im es, but t hat she ne ver called t hem; ra t her , she re ferr ed t o " fictit iou s ca lls," po t ent ially fro m neighbor s, a nd cou l d n ot de scri b e th e i n sta n ce s i n detai l . Sh e a l so a ttri b ute d on e of h er pri or i n di ca ted repor ts to her being lat e t o p ick Wil li am up fro m schoo l, claim ing that the scho ol imm

ediat ely call

ed DC FS on her f or thi s. Re spon

den t adm i tted that W

i l l i am ha s n ot li ve d wi th her si nc e 200 7. At the cl ose of thi s heari

ng, the trial

court hel d that pro bab le

cause ex is ted that Wil

li am was abus ed and n

egl ected. Consideri

ng the f acts bef ore it, the court ci

ted the prior in

dic ated repo rts, a hi sto ry of domestic v iolen ce, drug and alcohol ab

use, respo ndent's m

ental heal th issues, re spo ndent 's lack of c ont inuo us p ar ent ing o f Wil liam f or t he last t wo years , a nd Ju dge Dickler 'sNo. 1-10- 2563

5

pri or orders asthe base s f or i ts f i nd i ng . The c ourt iss

ue d a n or der gi vi ng tem pora ry cu stod y of W i l l i am to DC FS , con

cl udi ng tha t "i m medi atean

d ur gent n ec es si ty " exi ste d to supp ort remova

l of W i l l i am f rom th e h om e, an d th at rea son ab l e e f f ortscou l d n ot prev en t or e l i m i n ate th e i m med i ate and u rg ent nece ssit y for r emova l. Fur t her , t he co ur t denied visitat ion bet wee n Will iam and respondent, stating that "bas ed on the testim ony a nd the ev ide nce an d testim ony f iguri ng out what is best f or [Wil li am ], I wo n't al

low vi si tation" unti l a

therapis t could advi se the court as to what t ype o f visit at io n w as in Willia m's b es t int er es t , pr o mising t o "b r ing [ t he ca se ] ba ck ev er y we ek " if necessary in ord er to "keep [t he case] on a short leash and see how quickl

y we can get a visi t. " DCFS place d Willi

am with t he M. famil

y. The co ur t t hen o rd er ed a st at us he ar ing for t he next week. A ser ies o f sta t us he ar ings follo wed fro m Nove mber 2 009 t o J anua ry 20 10, re gar ding t he i ss ue of v i si tati on . A t th es e, W i l l i am

' s c as ew orker , C am

ara C ol v i n , te sti f i ed th at sh e m

et wi th Wi ll ia m, wh o was very

nervous that she was goin g to take hi

m out of his f

oster home. Wi

ll ia m was assi gned to a therapist and b egan therapy at the end of Novem

ber 2009. Colv

in related that Will iam had bec ome ve ry st re ssed aft er re ceiving a let t er fro m resp ond ent in the mail, c rying and expressi ng f ear that he would b e remove d from hi s f oster home. Colvi

n f urther stat ed that Will iam’s the ra pist t old her she ne ede d mo re t ime to co mplet e her asse ssment re gar ding t he appro priateness of visitation between Wi ll iam and respondent. Regarding the stat us of the cause it se lf, Co lvin a ve rr ed t ha t an int eg r at ed as se ss men t ha d n o t yet be en co mple t ed an d t ha t she co uld not prep are a

serv i ce pl an f or respon den t unti l thi s as ses sm

en t was f i nished. An adj udic ation he arin

g was hel d on March 3, 2010. At thi s heari ng, respondent agreedNo. 1-10- 2563

6

to a w ri tten sti pul ati on of f ac ts. The se

i nc l ude d re sp ond

en t's two pr i or i nd i ca ted rep orts f or substantial

risk of in jury due to inj urious en

vi ronmen t and me dic al

negl ect; the fa ct that she has an o t he rch ildno t in h er ca r e o rcu st o dy ( i.e. , Valeri e M.); that she h

as not had custody of W

il li am since Ma rc h 200 7; t hat she ha s a hist or y of alco hol abu se, do mest ic violence , ment al ill ness a nd psy chi atri c hospi

talizations;that sh

e has b een

di agn osed wi th b i pol ar disorder a

nd m ood di sorder; an d t ha t she ha s no t be en t ak ing an y med ica t io n fo rt he se ps ychia t r ic d iso r de r s. Ap ar t fr o m ag ain concedi ng the f acts to whi

ch sh e stipul ated and aski

ng the trial

court to fi

nd that she was no nc us t o dia l at t he t ime Willia m wa s t ak en by D CF S, r es po nd en t mad e n o o t he rar gu men t at t his heari ng. Based upon the ev

ide nce, the court found that Will ia m was negl

ected due to an i

nj urious env ironm ent and ab

used due to a substantial

risk of phy sical in jury. The court so ught to continue on t o t he disp os itio nal hear ing at t his po int. Ho weve r, t he pa rt ies infor med t he co ur t t hat t he re quir ed int egr at ed a sses sment had no t yet be en co mplet ed, nor had William 's t her apist s issue d t he reque sted re

port regard

i ng th e appropri ateness

of v i si tation between Wi l l i am and res ponde nt. The cour t set the case for further st atus. At a status hearin

g in March 2010, Lauri

e Lesl ie , Will ia m' s new caseworker, t estif ie d that t he pr oc ess fo r c omp leting t he inte gr at ed a sses sment had be gun a nd t hat she w ou ld pr epa re t he servi ce pl an f or respondent once that was compl eted. A letter from the h ead of the cl

in ic al therapy program

in whi ch W il li am was enrolle d and W

il li am's two therapists was then presented to the court . The l etter descri bed the serv

ic es they had b een provi

din g to Wi ll ia m a nd diagnosed him with ad

just ment d isor der wit h mixed anxiet y and de pr esse d mo od . I t also det ailed Will iam's t he r ap y se ss io ns in wh ich William c o nsis t en t ly exp r es se d h is d es ire no t t o visit r es po nd en t , hisNo. 1-10- 2563

7

expressi ons of f ear at the pro spect of bei

ng returned to respo nden t's care, and h

is repeated refusal to even talk ab out respondent durin g therapy. The

le tt er further stated that Wil li am "has n ot been very cooperat iv

e wi th therapy, an

d he usual ly does not want t o t al

k." The therapi sts concl

uded t hat , be cau se o f this, t hey wer e no t qua lif ied t o mak e any ass essment re gar ding t he appropri ateness of v i si tation between Wi l l i am and res ponde nt, as the c ourt had

reque sted. Fu r t he rst at us he ar ing s w er e c o nd uc t ed in Ma y and Ju ne 20 10 . Ca se wo rke rLe slie compl eted the in

tegrat ed assess

me nt and provided a copy of it to t he parties . Will

ia m c ontinued to pa rtici pa te i n th era py, but “ sh

ut dow n” when ever h e w asaske d to di

scus s res pon dent or visi tation wi th her. In Jul y 2010, responden

t file d a m

ot ion reques

ting a f in din g that no reasonable eff

ort s had been ma de to r eunify

her and W

il li am from August 2009 (when

temporary custo dy was f irst gi ven to DCFS b

y Judg e Di ckl er) to the c

urren t tim e. On Ju ly 29, 2 010 , t he t rial co ur t co nduc t ed a dispo sitio nal hear ing in Wil liam’s caus e and hear d ar gument on r esp ond ent ’s mot ion. Case wo rk er Leslie t est ifi ed o n behalf of t he St at e. She dis cu ss ed t ha t , wh ile Willia m’s ca se be ga n in N o ve mbe r20 09 , she wa s no t as sig ne d t o it un t il Fe br ua ry 20 10 an d t he int eg r at ed as se ss men t wa s no t co mple t ed un t il Ju ne 20 10 . Re ga r din g t his assess me nt, Leslie noted that t he f

oll owing s ervices were recomm ended f or respondent: indi

vi dual cou n se l i n g, p aren ti n g c l as se s, a p aren

ti n g c ap ac i ty as se ssmen

t, a su b sta n ce ab us e a ss es sm

en t, dom es ti c v i ol en ceservi ce s a

nd a p sy ch ol ogical exam i na ti on. Le sl i e h ad ref erred res pon dent f or t hese ser vices in June 201 0, but as o f the insta nt hear ing, r esp ond ent had no t par t icipat ed in any of t hem. Le slie also d esc ribed t hat furt her informat ion o n re spo ndent was re quir ed, includingNo. 1-10- 2563

4 The i nteg rated a sse ssm

en t al so detai

l ed i nc i den ts i nv olv i ng W i l l i am ’sf athe r, Mr. S. 8 r ec o r ds fr o m t he do ct o rshe st at ed she se es fo rhe rmed ica t io n ma na ge men t , he rpa st ps ychia t r ic di agn osi s an d a cu rren t sub stan ce a bus e as ses sm

en t. Regardi ng W il li am , Lesl ie testifi ed that he i s stil

l l iv in g with the M . fam

il y, wh ere he h as re sid ed co nt inuo us ly since Aug us t 20 09 . L es lie visit ed t his fo st er ho me a nd fo und t hat it wa s s afe and appr opr iate. Les li

e also t estified regard ing W il li am’s therapist s. She de scribed that Will iam ’s initial the ra pist had c lose d his ca se in June 201 0, believing tha t t her apy wa s har ming him , no t ing th at h e w as n ot m ak i n g p rogre ss

an d w oul d n ot tal k a b out res pon den t, a n d c on cl udi n g th at, therefore, she could not give a viabl e opin ion as to whether vi si

tation with res

pondent was ap pr o pr iat e. Le slie av er r ed t ha t she wo uld ide nt ify a ne w t he r ap ist fo rWilliam. Ho we ve r , Le slie de scri b ed th at th e c om pl ete d i n teg ra ted as se ssmen

t di d add re ss th i s iss ue an d, a l ong wi th recomm endati ons f

rom her agen

cy , concluded tha

t vis itation b etween Wi

ll ia m a nd responden

t was not appropri ate. Le sl

i e stated that sh e b el i ev ed i t was i n W i l l i am ’sbe st i

ntere st to be m

ade a ward of th e c our t. In addi tion to Lesli

e’s testim ony, se veral documen ts were admi

tt ed i nto evide nce, in cl udin g the in tegrat ed assess

me nt and two letters from Ma ria Potter, a lic ensed cl

in ic al supervisor inv

olve d in Wi ll ia m’ s case. The i

ntegrated assessm

ent noted that inf

ormation obtai

ned fro m inter views w ith r esp ond ent was co nt ra dict ed by infor matio n fro m ot her so ur ces , includ ing police fi le s, DCFS records and i

nf ormation gathered i

n i nterviews wi

th Wi ll ia m. It detail

ed inci dents w hich

pro mpted r espo ndent’s pr ior indicated re por ts, schoo l i nter ventions, r espo ndent’s psychiat ric beha vior and he r d isco nt inuat ion o f her p sycho t ro pic medica t ion. 4 The asse ssmentNo. 1-10- 2563

Brie fl y, i n addi tion to his b ei

ng sen tenced to jail, these

in cl uded alcohol ab

use, domestic vi

olen ce between h

im and m ulti ple girl fri ends, an d the confi

scation of loaded weapons

kept in h is home . 9 al so in cl uded i nterviews wi

th respondent and W

il li am from March an

d April 2010. In h

er in terview, responden

t could not identify

any weaknes s or areas requiri ng i mprovem ent in her pa re n ti n g ski l l s, an d des cri b ed h er cu rre n t re l ati on sh i p wi th W i l l i am as “v er y cl ose an d ver y ti gh t” an d a s " the gre ate st." Me an

wh i l e, i n h i s i nte rvi ew , Wi l l i am

de mons trate d a cl ea r f ea r of re spo ndent , r at ing it a s a 1 0 o n a sc ale o f 1 t o 1 0, and he des cr ibed t hat she hit him with a belt and did n ot feed h im . Will ia m repea tedly stated t o Leslie

that he di d not want to have any contact wit h r es po nd en t , cr ied , an d a pp ea r ed an xio us wh en qu es t io ne d a bo ut he r . William e xp r es se d h is desi re to continue

li vi ng i n hi s f oster home, stated t hat he f el t safe there, and ref

erred to hi s f

oster paren ts as “ mom” and “ dad.”

Wi l l i am had also j ust su

cce ssf ull y com pleted the se cond

grade . Based on al

l thi s, the in tegrat ed assess

me nt concl uded that the prospect for reunifi cation was poor , that respo nden

t needed to address several is sues b efore reuni

fi cation could be consi

dered, and that vi si

tation between responden t and Wi ll ia m s hould take pl

ace onl y i f an d when Wi ll ia m agree d t o it. Cli

nical super visor Po tt er’s lett ers, prep ared in July 2010, reviewed Wil

li am’s si tuation and recomm

ended that visi

tation between W

il li am and responden

t was not appro priate. Fo llowing t he evide nce, t he t rial co ur t hear d ar gument fro m the p ar t ies. T he St at e and t he publ ic guardian agreed that it was i

n W il li am ’s b est in

terest t o be m

ade a ward of the court, t hat re spo ndent be fo und u nable t o c ar e fo r him, and t hat re spo ndent ’s mot ion fo r a finding of no re aso nable effo rt s be d enied. Resp ond ent , mea nwhile, a rg ued so lely that she c ou ld o nly be found una bl e an d tha t the court shoul

d gran t her m otion f or a f i ndi ng of no reasona

bl e ef f orts.No. 1-10- 2563

5 Du ri n g th e p rogre ss i on

of th i s c au se , re sp on den

t f i l ed a s ec on d m

oti on , s eeki

n g to compel DCFS t o o btain a thera pist’s advice rega rding what t ype of vi sitat ion was in W il li am’s 10 Res ponde nt di d not pre sen

t an a rgum en t regard i ng wardshi

p. At t he clo se o f the dispo sitio nal hear ing, t he t rial co ur t adjud ged Will iam a war d o f the court . At the out set of i

ts colloquy, the court not ed: “[T]here is no argument that t he m in or sho uldn’ t be made a ward of the Co urt , so t he minor will be made a w ar d o f the Co ur t . T he pa rt ies see m to agr ee t hat t he
mother ** * [i s] un

ab l e onl y , and tha t wi l l be the f i ndi ng.” It then turne d to an exa

m i na tion regar di ng r esp ondent’s

clai m of n o reason ab l e ef f orts. The court was cri tical of the cause’ s tim

elin e, noting that the compl

etion of the i

ntegrated assessm

ent–whi ch was requi red to move

to ward reunifi

cation–was “

very del ay ed.” It also acknowledged that it was “u pset” by the f act tha t respon den t had not y et be en ref erred f or and be gun the s ervi ces

requi red. Ho weve r, t he co ur t st at ed t hat , no net heless, “the most impor t ant t hing” fo r r eunit ing re spo ndent and Wi l l i am

“is tha t Wi l l i am ha s to be w

i l l i ng to vi si t” wi th res ponde nt an d “not be f earf ul of” her, which was not t he case. Thus, t he court issued “a fi ndi ng of reasonable ef

forts because t he m

ost r ea so na ble effo r t t o r eu nit e t his fa mily wo uld be t o ge t t he r ap y fo rWilliam, an d h e h as be en in therapy,” an

d that t hi s “m

ost im port ant eff

ort ” has “ been unsucces sf

ul, obv iousl y.” It reiterated t ha t “t he r e is no ho pe fo rr eu nific at io n a t all [ in Wil liam ’s ca se ] un les s h e is in a po sit io n t o sa y, ye s, I’m at least wi

ll in g to me et with [responden t]. *** [ T]hat was the most i mportant eff

ort that could h ave b een m

ade ***,” and, al

though it f

ai le d, it was cl

ear that reasonable eff

ort s had b een made. Therefore, t he court deni ed respo ndent’s m ot ion f or a findi ng of no reasonable ef

forts. 5No. 1-10- 2563

be st i ntere st, as p er the

tria l court’s i ni tia l Novem ber 2009order. Af

ter den y i ng h er m otion f or a fi ndi ng of n o reasonable eff

ort s, the court granted respondent’s se cond m ot ion, orderin

g a t her apist ’s eva luat ion, along wit h t he r ece ipt of c er t ain rec or ds, t he so lidif icat ion o f refer ra ls, t he placemen t of se rvi ces , and wee

kl y moni torin g of thi s ca use . 11 A cc ordi n gl y , i n i ts w ri tten ord er , the tr

i al cou rt d ec l ared

W i l l i am a w ard of

th e c our t, f oun d r es pon den t un ab l e to c are f

or h i m , a n d n oted th at rea son

ab l e e f f ortsh ad b een made to prevent or eli

mi nate the need f

or removal , that appro priate serv ic es f or reunif ic ation ha ve b een unsu cce ssful, a nd t hat it is in Will iam’s best inter est t o be re moved fro m resp ond ent ’s cu st od y and place d i n the gua rdian sh i p of DCF S. AN

AL YSIS Respo ndent pr esents t wo c ont entions for our review. Her fi rst inv olves the t rial court ’s denial o f her mo t ion fo r a finding of no re aso nable effo rt s. T hat is, r esp ond ent co nt ends t hat t he cou rt er red i n f i nd i ng tha t rea son ab l e e f f orts h ad be en made to p rev

en t or el i m i na te the n ee d f or Will iam ’s removal. She asser ts t hat, because no effort w as made to obt ain a therapist’s assess me nt of Wi ll ia m’ s si tuation, the court had n

o factual basi s upon whi

ch to conclude that reas onab l e ef

f orts f or reun i f i cation had b een

attem pted or tha

t these ef f orts prove d un suc ces sf

ul . We disagree. A s a threshol d m atter, w e n

ote, a s th e pub l i c g ua rdi an doe s i n i ts b rief , th at re sp ond

en t on appe al us es i n terch an ge ab l y th e p h ra se s “ re as on ab l e e f

f ortsto prev

en t or e l i m i n ate th e n ee d to re move” Will

iam from her car e and “rea so nable effo rt s t o r eunify” Will iam and r esp ond ent . As thes e ph rase s are not en tire l y i ntercha nge ab l e con

cepts , we wi

sh to provide s ome

clarif i cation. InNo. 1-10- 2563

12

its oral c oll

oquy f oll owing the dis positi onal heari ng, the trial

court hel d that DCFS had m

ade reasonabl e eff ort s at reuni fi

cation, but that these were unsuc cessf ul. Inde ed, in

respondent’s own mo t io n, she sp ec ifica lly so ug ht a d ec lar at io n t ha t r ea so na ble effo rt s t o r eu nify William a nd he r se lf had n ot occurred. Ho wever, i

n i ts written order, t he court checked a box on a preprin ted or der form stat ing that r easo nable effort s had been made to prevent or eli mi nate t he need for Will

iam ’s
r emo va l fro m re sp o nd en t ’s ho me, r at he rt ha n t he bo x d ire ct ly belo w it st at ing t ha t r ea so na ble eff ort s had m

ade for reuni

fi cation. As

the publ ic guardian points out, a cour t’s oral pronounceme

nt of i ts decis ion prev

ai ls over its wri

tt en order, should a conf

li ct arise. See In re R.W. , 371 Ill . App. 3d 1171, 1173 (2007); accord In re Taylo r B. , 359 Ill . App. 3d 647, 651 (2005 ). Ac cordi

ngl y , we n ote for the rec ord and f

or purpose s of

clari ty th at we a re dea l i ng h ere wi th rea sona

bl e ef f orts toward reu

ni f i cation. Th e p arti esagree tha t the sta nd ard of rev i ew perti ne nt to th i s iss uei s m an i f es t we i gh t of the evidence. We, to o, fi

nd this to be cor rect . As the r eco rd de monstr ate s, t he cou rt ’s reas onab l e-ef

f orts f i ndi ng was e ntere d at the

end of the d i sposi tion al he ari ng i n W i l l i am ’scaus e. Thus, i t was part o f the court’s di spositional ruli ng, whi ch also held that Wi ll

ia m s hould b e m

ade a ward of the court. A tr ia l c ourt ’s di spositional

deci sion regardin

g a m in or rest s wi

thin the that co ur t ’s disc re t ion and will not be o ver t ur ned u nless it is aga inst t he manifest weight of t he evi dence or the court abused its discretion b y s el ectin g an i nappropriate di sposition. See In re J.C. , 39 6 Il

l . A pp. 3d 1 050 , 10 60 ( 200 9); se e al so In re Ta.A. , 384 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 30 3, 307 ( 2008) ; In re T.M. , 125 Ill. App. 3d 85 9, 86 1 (19 84). We further a cknow ledge that a tr ial cou rt ’s de cis io n is a ga inst t he man ifes t we igh t o f t he ev ide nc e o nly wh en t he o pp o sit e c o nc lus io n isNo. 1-10- 2563

13

cl early apparent (see In re

Fait h B. , 35 9 I ll. A pp . 3d 57 1, 57 3 ( 20 05 ) ) , an d t ha t it ab us es it dis cretion onl

y w hen it acts arbi

traril y w ithout consci entious j udgme nt (see Connor v. Velin da C. , 35 6 I ll. A pp . 3d 31 5, 32 4 ( 20 05 ) ) . Ult imat ely, t he r e is a “ st r o ng an d c o mpe lling p r es ump t io n in f avor of the res

ul t reach ed b y the tri al court” i n chi l d custody c ase s. Connor , 356 Ill . App. 3d at 323. Base d up on o ur t hor ou gh r eview o f the re co rd in the inst ant cau se, we c anno t find tha t t he trial court ’s decisi on to deny

respondent’s m

ot ion f or a fi ndi ng of n o reasonable eff

ort s was agai nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce or dem

onstrated an arbi

trary or unconscientious judgm ent. Rather, we fi

nd that the trial

court properly

deni ed her m ot ion, as reasonabl

e eff ort s at reun i f i cation we

re cl earl y und ertaken i n th i s ca use . Re sp ond en t i s c orre ct i

n h er c ha racteri za ti on of a c ons i derabl e del

ay at re un i f i ca ti on eff ort s wi th Wi ll ia m. As the record shows, the temporary custody h earin g occurred in Nove

mb er 200 9, b ut the i nte gra ted as se ssmen

t (wh i ch wa s req ui red to move thi s c as e al ong) wa s n

ot compl eted until June 2010 an

d, as of the Jul

y 2010 di spositional

heari ng, the agenc ie s i

nvol ved herei n ha d stil l n ot obtaine d all the records they wanted nor had ref

erred respondent for servi ces so s h e c oul d b eg i n th em. Th

e rec ord also n otes th at c as ew orker s a

n d th erap i sts ca me a n d w en t, and that the partici

pating a genci es, at time s, seem

in gly did n ot tim el y a ddress Wi ll ia m’ s case due to some an

omal ie s wi th it. Indeed, the trial

court , in its colloquy

at the end of the di spositional heari ng, m ade clear its concern

at the delay

in Wi ll ia m’ s case an

d in form ed every one i nvol ved that i t foun d this to be “

upse t[tin g].” How ever, res

pon dent’ s i ns i stenc e that b ec au se

of thi s th e c ourt h ad no f ac tual basis f orNo. 1-10- 2563

14

den y i ng h er m otion can not stan d. Throughout t he proceedi

ngs i n W il li am ’s cause , the court was i nunda ted with f actual evidenc e t hat Will

iam did no t want t o ha ve any co nt act wit h re spo ndent . As e ar ly as the No vember 2 009 t empo ra ry cu st od y hearing, t he co ur t pr ohibit ed visit at ion bet wee n re spo ndent and William

unt il a ther apist co uld eva luat e wha t t ype o f visitat ion wo uld be a ppr op riat e and wou l d n ot tra um ati ze W i l l i am an y f ur th er . Su b se qu en tl y , c as ew orker

Col v i n h ad meeti n gswi th Wi ll ia m. Sh e testif ie d that he was al

ways very nervous that she woul

d take hi m out of his f

oster home and pl ace hi m wi th respondent. Colvi

n descri be one i nci dent when

Wi ll ia m we nt to check t he mailbox and fou nd a let t er add re ssed t o him fro m resp ond ent . T his st re ssed Will iam, re sult ing in hi s cry in g and h is further f ear that he would b e returned to respondent. Sim il arly , caseworker Leslie, who t oo k o ver Will iam’s case , t est ifi

ed t hat Will

iam rep eat edly “shut do wn” w heneve r he wa s a sk ed ab out res pon den t or th e p oten ti al f or v i si tati on wi th h er . In h er i n ter v i ew s wi th William, he co nsis t en t ly t o ld L es lie t ha t he wa nt ed t o st ay in h is fo st er ho me w it h t he M. family an d h is ha lf-s ist er , felt sa fe t he r e, an d c alle d h is fo st er pa r en t s “mo m” a nd “d ad . ” H e c lea r ly stated that he

did not wa

nt to hav e an y contact wi

th res ponde nt, i nc l udi ng v i si tation . In addi tion to t hese caseworkers’ testim ony, the court was presented wi th several documen ts regarding the propri ety of v is itation b etween responden t and Wi ll ia m. The se i

ncl uded t he inte gr at ed a sses sment , w hich co nt ained Willi am’s inte rview s, a genc y lett er s re co mmending that visi ts we re inappro priate , and lett ers fro m W il li am’s therapist s. In t he last of t hese, Wil li am’s t her apist s de t ailed his co nt inuo us e xpr essio n of no des ire t o visit re spo ndent , his fea r a t t he potential of th i s, an d hi s com plete ref usa l to even tal k ab out respon

den t duri ng th ei r ses sions. I

nNo. 1-10- 2563

15

fact , t he t her apist s st at ed t hat , be cau se o f this, t hey co uld no t even fo rm an o pinion o n t he pr op riet y of visitat ion and had t o c lose his case beca use no p ro gr ess w as be ing made; t he thera pi sts stated tha

t tryi ng to ad dres s the visi tation i ssue wi th W i l l i am wasactual

l y doi ng m ore harm than good. It was pr ecisely up on a ll these fact s t hat t he t rial co ur t her e bas ed it s ru ling reg ar ding reasonable ef

forts. As the court explain ed, t he m ajor obstacle to reunif

ication i n Wi ll iam ’s case was t hat Will

iam did no t want t o ha ve any co nt act wit h re spo ndent . T he co ur t st at ed t hat “the most im por tant t hi

ng” for reunitin

g respo ndent and Wi

ll iam was that Willi

am h ad to be at least wil li ng to vis it wi

th her and n

ot be f earful of her. To accompl

is h thi s, the court had ordered th erap y f or W i l l i am. Acc ordi

n g to th e c our t, th i s th erapy wa s “ th e m ost re as on ab l e e f

f ort to reuni te this f am il y.” A nd, as proven b

y the record, DCFS im

ple me nted, and Wi

ll ia m pa rtici pated in, t his the ra py. H ow ever , by t he Ju ly 2010 dispo sitio nal hear ing, it was clear t hat t he t her apy–t he “m ost i m portant ef f ort that could ha

ve be en made” toward reu

ni f i cation–w as s i

m pl y uns ucce ssf ul . Yet, t hat “the m

ost reaso nab le

eff ort ” applic abl

e to Wil li am ’s cause

fai le d does not negate the fact that, as the tr ia

l c ourt found, reasonable

eff ort s had, i ndeed, be en m

ade. We n ot e that, at the very

end of h er bri ef, responden

t makes one, an

d only one, referen

ce to an y su ppor ti ve l eg al pre ce dent: a curs ory

ci tation to In re C.S. , 376 Il l . Ap p. 3d 11 4 (200 7), whi ch she states

i s si m i l ar to the i

nstant ca use and sh oul d con trol h ere. Th i s i s wh oll y i nc orrect. In C.S. , t he St at e filed a pe t itio n for adjud icat ion o f war dship o f the minor ba sed on t he res pon dent- mothe

r’ s m en tal di sa bi l i ti es . Du ri ng the proc ee di ng s, th e re sp ond en t f i l ed a m oti on aski ng the trial

court to conduct a men

tal exam in ation of h er in an ef fort to obtain f

or t he record aNo. 1-10- 2563

16

co mplet e diag nos is of her alleged disabilities. The co ur t denied her mot ion, along wit h a sub seq uen t oral motion f or the s am

e. Even tuall y , the c ourt is sue d an

order ad j udgi ng th e m i nor a wa rd of the cou rt, hav i ng f oun d that the Sta

te p rov ed the al l eg ati ons i n th e p eti ti on f or adj udic ation. See C.S. , 3 76 I ll. App. 3d 1 16- 17. The re spo ndent app ealed , c ont ending t hat t he trial court erred in

deny in g her m ot ions for m ental exam in ation, as such

an exam in ation was necess ary to determi

ne the v alidi ty of the State’s petition. The C.S. co ur t agr eed , r ever sing and reman din g the cause. See C.S. , 376 Ill . App. 3d at 119. In renderin g its decision, the C.S. court ack now ledge d t hat t he so le basis fo r t he St at e’s p et itio n for adjud icat ion wa s t hat t he r esp ond ent was m entally dis abl ed, which sh

e deni ed. See C.S. , 376 Ill . App. 3d at 118. Because there was no c ur re nt and c omp lete menta l examinatio n of r eco rd , t her e simply was no fact ual bas is for t he trial court ’s h oldi ng an d it was, theref

ore, im proper. S ee C.S. , 376 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 119. C.S. i s wh oll y di sti ngu i shab l e f rom th e i nstant ca use . Fi rst, C.S. do es no t even a ddr ess t he que st ion o f rea so nable effo rt s at re unificat ion, which co mprises t he cr ux o f resp ond ent ’s ar gument her e. Mo re ove r, while the t rial co ur t ’s de nials of t he r esp ond ent ’s mot ions in C.S. we r e c lea r ly impr o pe r , t he t r ial c o ur t ’s de nia l o f r es po nd en t ’s mo t io n he r e w as , in c o nt r as t , en t ire ly appropriate. In the in

stant cause, unl

ike C.S. , the court did n

ot render a decision without a factual basis. Rat her , a s we have a lread y discuss ed, t her e wa s mor e t han ample e vidence , includ ing f actual testi mon y an d docu men tati on , pr es en ted to th e tr i al cou rt herei n detai l i n g th at, con tra ry to resp onde nt’s al l egati ons i n h er m otion , reas onabl e ef

f orts at reun

i f i cation had b een

und ertaken. T he r efo r e, ba se d o n o ur r ev iew o f t he r ec o r d, we findt ha t t he t r ial c o ur t did no t er rin deny in g respondent’s m

ot ion f or a fi ndi ng of n o reasonable eff

ort s and, i n turn, holdi

ng thatNo. 1-10- 2563

17

reas onab l e ef

f orts had be en

made re gardi

ng W i l l i am ’scaus e. We no w t ur n t o r esp ond ent ’s se co nd, and final, c ont ent ion fo r r eview, which she inextr icably l

inks t o he r first . T his time, challenging t he t rial co ur t ’s wa rd ship de t er minatio n, she assert s that , because ther e was no fact ual basi s for t he reaso nable-effort s fi nding, the co urt ’s wardshi p order must als o be reversed. A gai n, we di sagree. Mu l ti pl e th re sh old m atte rsde f ea t a rev i ew of re sp on den

t’s con ten ti on at th e ou tse t. F i rs t, is sues regardi

ng whether a mi

nor should b e adj udged a ward of the court are not related to issues reg ard i ng reason ab l e e f f orts on the pa rt of DC FS towa

rd reu ni f i ca ti on. Th es e c onc ep ts a

re on two w h oll y dif f eren t pl an es an d, s i gn i f i ca n tl y , re sp on den

t prov i de s u s wi

th n o ca se l aw or s tatu te to the contrary. The Juv

eni le Court Act of 1987 (Act) provide s that, once a trial court determi

nes a m in or has been

abused or negl

ected, it must conduct a disposi tional heari ng to decide “

whether it i s consi stent with the h

eal th, safety and b est in

terest o f the m

in or and the publ

ic that he be m

ade a w ar d o f t he co ur t . ” 7 05 I LC S 4 05 /2
- 21 ( 2) ( We st 20 08 ) . I t is t his “ be st int er es t ” a na lysis (w hich we w ill

discu ss in mor e de t ail below) t hat is key t o a war dship d ecisio n, no t a finding regardin g whether reasonable

eff ort s toward reunif

ic ation were em

ploy ed by an agen cy in volv ed in the cause. See In re

Viol etta B. , 2 10 I ll. App. 3d 5 21, 533 (1 991 ) ( t he "p ar amou nt cons i derati

on i n a l l guard i an sh i p an d ch i l d custody c ase s i s the

be st i ntere sts of

the chi l d"); acc ord In re A ustin W. , 21 4 Ill. 2d 31, 49 ( 200 5); In re S.J. , 364 Ill . App. 3d 432, 442 (2006) (a child's be st i ntere st takes

prece den ce over an

y other considerati

on). Secon

d, even i f resp ondent were co rr ec t in he ras se r t io n t ha t a la ck o f r ea so na ble effo rt s r eq uir es t he r ev er sa l o f a w ar ds hip determi nation, we h

ave al ready h el d that abundan

t factual e vi dence ex is ted to support t he trialNo. 1-10- 2563

18

co ur t ’s de cis io n t ha t r ea so nable effo r t s ha d b ee n e mplo yed in Willia m’s ca us e. T he r efo r e, ev en in that ins tance, respondent’s argum ent could n

ot stand. Third , a nd mo st cr itically, re spo ndent has w aived a ny cons ider at ion o f the pr op riet y of t he trial court ’s wardsh

ip de termi nation f or o ur revi ew. It is wel

l e stablis hed that, to preserve an alle ge d e rr o rfo rap pe llat e r ev iew , a p ar t y mus t , ev en in c hildcu st o dy c as es , o bje ct at t r ial a nd file a written posttr ia

l m ot ion a ddressi ng i t. See In re

Lakit a B. , 29 7 Ill. App. 3d 9 85, 991 (19 98) ; In re Christopher

J. , 33 8 Il l . A pp. 3d 1 057 , 10 58 ( 200 3); se e al so In re April C. , 326 Ill . App. 3d 225 , 24 2 (2 001 ) (“ [w] he

re a pa rty f ai l s to m ake a n a ppr opri ateobj ec ti on i

n th e c ourt b el

ow, h e or sh e h as f ai l ed to pres er v e th e q ue sti on f or re v i ew an d th e iss ue i s wai v ed ”) . In addi ti on , “ [a ] p ar

ty is e st o pp ed fr o m t ak ing a p o sit io n o n app ea l t ha t is inc o nsis t en t wit h a po sit io n t he pa rt y t o o k in the trial court .” In re Stephen K. , 373 Il l . Ap p. 3d 7, 2 5 (200 7). Res ponde nt here n ev er obj ected a

t trial to the court’s

wards hi p determ i na tion . Rather, the re cord rev

eals tha t, at the cl

ose of Wi l l i am ’sdi sposi

tion al he ari ng, th e tri al court he ard argument from the parties. The St ate and t he publ ic guardian

urged t hat it was in W

il li am’s best i ntere st to be m

ade a ward of the c ourt. Resp ondent, m ean whi l e, nev er add

ress ed thi s poi

nt. Instead, the onl

y argum en t she pres en ted was that the court sh oul d, based

on the evi den ce, enter a fi ndi ng of “ unab le ” ( i.e. , t ha t she wa s c ur r en t ly un ab le t o ca r e fo rWilliam) . T he r ec o r d is unm is takabl y c le ar that respondent did n ot present an argum

ent regardin

g wardshi p. The trial court, too, noted thi s at the start of i t coll oquy renderi ng i ts di sposi tion al deci sion i n the m atter: “[T]here is no argument that t he m in or sho uldn’ t be made a ward of the Co urt , so t he minor will be made a w ar d o f the Co ur t . T he pa rt ies see m to agr ee t hat t heNo. 1-10- 2563

19 mother ** * [i s] un

ab l e onl y , and tha t wi l l be the f i ndi ng.” A gai n , re sp on den

t di d n ot re f ute th i s p oi n t. Acc ordi

n gl y , her atte m pt to n ow raise a ch al l en ge to the trial court ’s wardsh

ip f in din g on appeal

is forfe ited. See April C. , 326 Ill . App. 3d at 241-42 (where the responden

t did not object to stipula

tion duri ng di spositional

heari ng, i ssue was f orfe i ted); see , e.g. , Stephen K. , 373 Ill. App. 3d at 25 (a part y cannot challenge a trial cour t’s wards hi p f i ndi ng on ce she ha s con cede d tha t the ch i l d sh oul d be made a ward of the c ourt). E ve n w er e w e t o pla ce wa ive ras ide an d a dd r es s r es po nd en t 's a ss er t io n, we wo uld co nclude , ba sed on t he r eco rd befo re us, t hat t he t rial co ur t 's de t er minatio n of w ar dship in t he i nstant ca use wasproper. As we not ed a bove , in all gua rd ianship ca ses, " 't he issue t hat singly m ust be de cided is the best interest o f the chi

ld.' " Aust in W. , 214 Ill . 2d at 49 (quo ting In re Ashley K. , 212 Ill . App. 3d 84 9, 87 9 ( 19 91 ) ( t his " is no t pa r t o f an eq ua t io n" bu t , r at he r , t he main f ac t o rt ha t "mu st r ema in i nv i ol atean d i m pre gnab l e f

rom al l othe r f ac tors" )); se e al so Viol

etta B. , 210 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 533. A chi ld' s best in

terest takes pr ecedence over any other co nsiderat ion, in cludi ng the natural parents' righ t t o custo dy. See S.J. , 36 4 I ll. A pp . 3d at 44 2 ( t he su pe r io rr igh t o f a p ar en t t o cu st o dy o f his mi nor child is not abso lute a nd must always yi eld to the mi

nor 's best inter est ); In re J.L. , 30 8 I ll. App. 3d 859, 864-65 (1999) . Ac co rd ingly, it is no t even ne ces sar y for a co ur t t o firs t find the
m i nor's pa ren ts u nf i t or th at they

f orf ei ted the i r cu stod i al righ ts i f a b es t i nte res t de term i na ti on shows that the mi

nor should b e pl aced wi

th someone other than h

is parents. See S.J. , 36 4 I ll. App. 3d at 442; accord In re M.M. , 33 7 Ill. App. 3d 7 64, 779 (20 03) ; Viol etta B. , 210 Ill . App. 3d at 53 3.No. 1-10- 2563

20

I n a ss es sing a mino r 's b es t int er es t , t he t r ial c o ur t is t o lo o k t o all ma t t er s be ar ing o n his wel fare. See Viol

etta B. , 210 Ill . App. 3d at 534 . T hese include s ever al fact or s de lineate d in t he Act i tself whi ch take i nto considerati on the mi

nor's age an

d devel opmen tal ne eds, in

cl udin g: "(a) th e ph y sical saf ety and wel f are of the chi l d, i nc l udi ng f ood, she l ter, heal th, and clot hi

ng; ( b) t he de ve lo pm en t o f t he ch ild 's id en t it y; (c ) t he child's ba ckg ro und a nd t ies, includ ing famil ial, cu ltu ra l, and reli gious; (d) the child' s sen se of attachm ents, in cl udin g: (i ) wh ere the ch i l d a ctu al l y f ee l s l ove , attach

men t, an d a sens e of bei ng va lue d ***; ( ii) t he ch ild 's se ns e o f se cu r it y; ( iii) t he ch ild 's se ns e o f fa milia r it y; (iv ) continui ty of af fection for the chi

ld; (v) the l east dis

ruptive pl acem ent al ternative f

or t he ch il d; (e) t he chi

ld' s wish es and long-t erm goals; (f) the chil

d's comm uni ty ties, in cludi ng church, school, and friends; (g) the ch i l d' s n ee d f or pe rm an en cewh i ch i nc l ude s th e chi l d' s n ee d f or st ability and co nt inuity o f relat ionships wit h par ent figure s and wit h sibli ngs a nd ot her relativ

es; (h) the uni

queness of every fam il y a nd ch il d;No. 1-10- 2563

21 (i) the ri sks attendant to entering an d bei ng i n sub stitute care; and (j) the preferences of the persons avail able to care for t he chi

ld." 705 ILCS 405/1 -3(4.05 ) (We st 2008 ). See also Aust in W. , 21 4 Ill. 2d at 49- 50; In re Desiree O. , 381 Il l . Ap p. 3d 85 4, 865- 66 (20 08). Addit ionally, a c ou rt may cons ider t he nat ur e and lengt h of t he child's r elat ionship w ith his pr ese nt car et ake r a nd t he effect t hat a cha nge in plac ement wo uld have upo n his emot ional and psy chol ogical

well-b ei ng. See Aust in W. , 21 4 Ill. 2d at 50; Desiree O. , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 865- 66; accord J.L. , 30 8 Il

l . A pp. 3d a t 865 . On

rev i ew , we wi l l not d i stu rbthe trial cou rt’ s dec i si on on wardshi

p unless i t is agai nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. See In re G wynne P. , 34 6 I ll. Ap p. 3d 58 4, 599 ( 2004) . Pur suan t to our th

oroug h e xa m i na ti on of the rec ord i n th e i ns tan t ca us e, we c an

not co nclude t hat t he t rial co ur t 's de cision he re adjud ging Willi am a wa rd of t he co ur t is aga inst t he ma nifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. To the contrary, we agree wi th the trial

court that t he ev

ide nce o ve rwh elming ly sho ws t ha t su ch a d isp o sit io n w as in Willia m's b es t int er es t . William c o nsis t en t ly an d c onti nu al l y ex pre ss ed to m ul ti ple c as ew orke

rs an d thera pi sts thr ough out the p rogres si

on of his c au se t ha t he is fe ar ful o f r es po nd en t an d d o es no t wa nt t o ha ve an y co nt ac t wit h he r . I n his in terviews , he ci

ted ins tances of responde

nt's ph ys ic al abuse toward hi

m a nd he r refusal to feed him. Also u ndeniable in t his cau se is t he r ole o f do mest ic violence and s ubst ance abus e in the home William shared wit h re spo ndent and his bio log ical fathe r, as w ell as do mest ic violence and su bs tan ceab us e i n th e h ome of res pon dent a nd he r cu rrent h usba nd . A nd , th ose i n c ha rge of Will iam's case have r epe at edly not ed William 's anxiet y and ner vou sness whene ver t heNo. 1-10- 2563

22

conversation turned to ward any me ntion of vi si tation with res

pondent. In one i

nstance, W

il li am be gan cry i ng a nd e xpr ess ed f ear w hen h e rec ei ve d a l etter f rom r esp ondent i

n the m ail . Sign if ic antly , Will ia m' s therapi sts have

dia gnosed hi m wi th adjus tment di sorder with m

ix ed anx ie ty an d depressed m

ood. His therapis ts have al so describ ed that a great so urce of his di sorder is t he fac t t ha t William h as be en co nst an t ly mo ve d-
- fr o m re sp o nd en t , t o t he M. family, t o his b i ol ogi ca l f ath er , a n d agai n to th e M . f

am i l y . W i l l i am wi l l n ot tal k a b out res pon den t an d " sh uts down " at the

rapy ses sions w

hen s i m pl y ask ed about her. In c ontradisti

nction , Wi

ll i am ha s b een doi ng wel l i n h i s f oster home . The

record dem onstrates t hat he l

iv ed wi th the M. fam

il y b efore, durin

g the two- ye ar period between 2007 an d 2 00 9 w he n he wa s n o t in r es po nd en t 's ca r e. I n a dd it io n, wh ile l ivin g w it h t he M. fa mily, William is als o living wit h his bio lo gic al h alf- sis t er , Va ler ie M . , wh o ( simila r ly) is no t in
r es po nd en t 's c us t o dy. William h as ex pr es se d t ha t he fee ls s afe in his fo st er ho me, an d h e h as t o ld all tho se invo lved in his case t hat he wa nt s t o c ont inue living with t he M. famil y. Mo re ove r, he ca lls M r . an d M r s. M. "mo m" a nd "d ad , " a nd wh ile in t he ir c ar e, he ha s be en do ing we ll in sc ho o l, tim el y com pleti ng th e se cond grade . Responden

t has had two prior in

dic ated repor ts for substanti al risk of phy sical in jury due to i n j uri ous en v i ron men t an d f or m ed i ca l n eg l ect of

Wi l l i am. Sh

e h as also b een di ag n ose d wi th b i pol ar disor der, w h i ch sh e i n i ti al l y ad m i tted sh e h as b ut th en sta ted sh e on l y h as an an x i ety dis order; she has refus ed to t ake any me dic ation f

or o ver a y

ear. In her personal

in terviews
r eg ar din g W illiam, she de nie s a ny so r t o f ab us e o rne gle ct an d in st ea d in sis t s t ha t he rr ela t io nsh ip wit h him is clo se ( ev en t ho ug h he ha s no t lived wit h he rfo rse ve r al ye ar s) an d e ve ryt hing isNo. 1-10- 2563

23

ot her wise g re at ; no r d oe s she be lieve she has any wea knes s in her p ar ent ing skills. Mo re ove r, she co nt inues t o s t at e t hat she ha s bee n clean a nd so ber and t o d eny tha t she w as/ is involved in a do mes t ic v io len ce sit ua t io n, ev en t ho ug h mu lt iple po lice r ep o rt s ha ve be en pr o du ce d d ire ct ly refuti ng he r statements. Ul

tim ately , no one in

volv ed i n thi s cause h

as ever s uggested that visitat ion bet wee n re spo ndent and William is app ro pr iate
-- par t icular ly when, a t t he t ime of t he trial court 's dispositional

order, r espondent had n

ot ye t comple ted any of the recomm

ended services. The Act promotes

that, wh enev er poss i

bl e, the m i nor' s f am i l y tie s sh oul d be pres erved. See 7 05 IL CS 40 5/1-2( 1) (West 200 8). However, as we hav e di scussed, the A

ct also m andates ot her consi

derations, speci

fi cally , the best in

terest and welf

are of m in ors, and it i s these l

atter principles which do mi

nat e. S ee 70 5 ILC S 40 5/1 -2( 1) ( West 200 8); Aust in W. , 214 Ill . 2d at 46; se e al so Fait

h B. , 359 Ill . App. 3d at 572 . In the i nstant cause, the trial

court repeatedly

dis cussed a pr og re ssio n t ow ar d po t ent ial reu nifi cat ion; it co nsist ent ly held sta t us he ar ings and t old t he parties that i

t wanted to keep the cause "on a short leash " so vi si

tation could be

reestablis hed qu ick ly. Ho we ve r , it als o mad e c lea rt ha t it s d es ir e f o rt his , as we ll as it s d isma y wit h t he de lays i nv olv ed, di d not outwei

gh W i l l i am 's be st i ntere st, wh

i ch wasto be ad

j udge d a wa

rd of the c ourt. Also , we no t e t ha t ne it he rt he co ur t 's d ec isio n in t his r eg ar d n o ran y o t he rpr o ce ed ing he r ein pr event s re spo ndent fro m pur suing r eunificat ion and a cha nge o f war dship in t he fut ur e. In t he end, i t is cl ear that the court ma

de i ts determi nation based on Wi

ll ia m' s best interest, as i

t was r eq uir ed t o do . T hu s, t he r e is no ba sis fo rr es po nd en t 's a ss er t io n t ha t wa r ds hip wa s imp r o pe r ly deci ded .No. 1-10- 2563

24

From al l thi s, we fi nd am ple evi dence i n the record to support t he trial court 's f in din g that ad jud gin g W illiam a wa r d o f t he co ur t wa s in h is be st int er es t . T he r efo r e, we ca nno t sa y t ha t t his deci si on was agai

nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. CONCLUSION A cc ordi n gl y , f or al l th e f ore goi n g r ea son s, we af f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e tr i al cou rt. Affir m.