No. 3–08–0934

______________________________________________________________________________ File d Decem

ber 29, 2009 IN THE A

PPELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2009 In re J.C., J r., ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) f or th e 1 0th Judi ci al Ci rc ui t, a Mi nor, ) Pe o r ia C o un t y, I llino is ) (The Peo ple of the Stat e of Ill in ois, )

) Petitioner-A

ppelle e, ) No. 08–JA–195 ) v. ) ) T.C., ) Honorable ) Kim L
. Ke lley, Res ponde nt-A ppel l an t.) ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CECA

RT ER de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t:

______________________________________________________________________________ The responden

t, T. C., is the biol

ogical mother of the m

in or J.C. She appeals

from the trial
cou rt’ s d i sp osi ti ona l orde r un de r th e J uven i l e C ourt A

ct (th e A ct) a nd ch al l en ge s th e dec i si ons of the trial court that J.C. was neglected and that T.C. was unfi t. 705 ILCS 405/1–1 et seq. (West 20 08 )
. Aft er a r ev iew o f t he pa r t ies ’ a r gu men t s a nd t he r ec o r d, we affir m. FA CTS The m in or, J.C., was born on A

ugust 8, 2008. A petition al le gin g that J.C. was neglected was f il ed on Septemb er 3, 2008. The petition al le ged that J.C. was neglected due to an i nj urious
en v i ron men t i n th at: (1 ) h

i s m oth er , re sp on den

t T.C ., w as

pr ev i ous l y f oun d u n f i t i n Pe ori a C oun ty case num bers 97–JA

–101, 00–JA–293, and 06–J A–163 wi th no subseque

nt fi ndi ng of f itnes s; (2)2

the r espo ndent had no t co mplete d services that wou ld result in the ret urn home o f the mi nor’s si bl in gs i n those cases;(3) the mi

nor’s f ather was i

nvol ved i n case n umb er 06–JA–163, ha

d been f oun d f i t, b ut c our t wou l d n ot retur n m i n or h om e u n ti l f ur th er ord er ; (4 ) the f

ath er re si de d w i th the respondent and woul

d not move; a

nd (5) the fa

ther had a cri

mi nal hi story in cl udin g drug off en ses and the f t dati ng b ack to 199 6. The

m i nor’ s f athe r i s n ot a party to thi s ap peal
. Fol l owi ng a she l ter c are he ari ng , J. C. waspl

ac ed i n th e tem pora ry cu stod y of the De pa rtm en t of Chi ldren and Fa mi ly Services (DCFS) an

d pla ced wi th a relati ve f oster parent. On Septem

ber 16, 2008, the respondent fi

le d her ans

wer to the negl

ect petition an

d stipul ated to the fi

rst, t hi rd, fo ur t h a nd fift h a lleg at io n bu t de nie d t ha t she ha d fa iled t o co mple t e s er vic es t ha t wo uld r es ult in t he r et ur n home o f her o t her childre n. A n ad j udi ca tory h ea ri n g w as h el d on Oc tob er 28 , 20 08 . Th

e on l y f actual i ss ue i n di spute was whethe

r the respondent had com ple ted servi ces requi

red in the previous juv

eni le negl ect cas es t hat wo uld r esu lt in t he r et ur n home o f tho se c hildren. The re spo ndent t est ifi ed t hat in the pr eviou s juvenile cas es she had be en o rd er ed t o c omp lete a ps ycholo gical exa minatio n and
un dergo c oun se l i

ng an d that s he ha d c om plete d the e xa

m i na ti on a nd ha d b een i n c oun se l i ng f or t wo years . S he also t est ifi ed t hat she ha d co mplet ed a do mest ic violence class a nd wa s visiting her childre n. S he had not t est ed p os itive fo r illegal dr ugs in the yea r p rio r t o t he hea ring. The respondent testif

ie d that t here were three ongoin g servi ces requi red at t he tim

e of the he arin

g– dr ug t es t ing , co un se ling , an d v isit s w it h mino r s K. C. an d J
. C. – a nd t ha t she wa s p ar t icip at ing in those ser vices. The St at e su bmitt ed nu mero us e xhibits as a fact ual bas is in supp or t of t he r emaining allegat ions o f the neglec t pet itio n, t o w hich the re spo ndent had s t ipulat ed, co nsist ing o f the3

respondent ’s counseli

ng record s, a psychological ev aluation, and num

erou s documents from case
num bers 97–JA

–101, 00–JA–293, and 06–J A–163. The responden

t underwent a psy

chol ogical eval uation by Dr. Jane Vel

ez on Janua

ry 11, 2007. The responden t’s ful l s cal e i ntell ige nce quo t ient w as 6 9, which t he r epo rt st at es o n different pag es falls wit hin the bo rd er line and intellect ually deficient r ange s o f co gnit ive funct ioning. All of the subt est sco re s fall in the intellect ually deficient, bor der line, o r lo w ave ra ge r ange . D r. Velez also re po rt ed t hat t he
re spo ndent ’s ad apt ive behavio r sc or e falls within t he bo rd er line rang e and indicat ed t he
re spo ndent re quir ed infre que nt or no a ssist ance for indepe ndent livi ng. Dr . V elez st at ed t hat t he
re sp on den

t’s “ mai n dif f i cul ti es appe ar to b e th at sh e is a ra th er di sta n t an d a soc i al i n di v i du al wi th im pai red cogniti

ve ab il ity .” The re po rt also indicat es t hat t he r esp ond ent has a histo ry o f being involved in abusive rel ati ons hi ps . The re sp ond

en t tol d D r. V el

ez tha t sh e h ad us ed ca nn ab i s i n th e p as t bu t ha d n ot used any drugs in over three yea

rs and di d not plan on doi

ng so i n the f uture. Dr. Vel ez con cl uded , “D. C. F. S. a

n d th e C our t sh oul d b e c au ti ous i n re tur n i n g [ th e res

pon den t’s ] c h i l d to her care *** du e to [her ] l engthy history wi th D.C .F.S. a

nd s eriousness

of these conc ern s.” Court records from the prev ious n egl ect cases concerni

ng the responden

t and her other chi ldren in dic ate that t he responden

t was in itially found un fi t in case num

ber 97–JA

–101. In that case, a juven

il e petition was fi

led i n June 1997 all

egin g that mi nor Z.P. was negl ected because Z.P . w as br ou ght t o t he ho spit al in the fo llowing co ndit ion: “ext re mely f ilthy and u nkempt wit h a
ur ine so ake d diap er , p neumo nia and a t emper at ur e, ecz ema t o t he hea d and face, diape r r ash, [and] i mpe tigo.” Z.P. was born prema ture o n Decem

ber 4, 1996 and on Jun

e 19, 1997 remai

ned bel ow the fifth percen

tile i n wei ght and l ength f or her age. Z.P. also had a m edi cal condi tion that4

re quir ed u se o f a nebulizer and p har macy rec or ds indica t ed t hat Z.P .’s last pr esc ript ion fo r t he neb uli zer me dic in

e had n ot been fi ll ed. Fi nal ly , the petition al

le ged that the respondent had stated prior to Z.P. ’s b irth that she did n ot want Z.P. and would starve her to death. On September 2, 1997, the court found the peti tion had b een proven

and that Z.P. was negl

ected. On June 17, 1999, the r espo ndent’s pa rent al rights to Z.P. were t ermin ate d, following the re sponde nt’s surrender o f such ri

ghts. A .P. wasbor

n on De cem be r 5, 199 7. A

j uven i l e p eti ti on r eg ard i ng A .P. wasf

i l ed on January 14, 1998, all

egi ng A .P. was neglected due to an i nj urious en

vi ronmen t in part beca

use (1) Z.P . ha d bee n re moved fro m the r esp ond ent ’s ca re and t he r esp ond ent had no t made s ufficient progress to have her returned, and (2) A.P.’s wei ght had dropped to 4 lb s. 2 oz. due t o im proper feeding by t he r esp ond ent . T he r esp ond ent admit t ed t he allega t ions a nd A. P. was fou nd t o be
ne glected. Th

e res ponde nt wa s f ound u nf i t on Ap ri l 14, 199 8, an

d he r parental ri ghts were ul tim atel y termi nated f or fai l ure to make

reasona bl e ef forts an d progress toward the re

turn of A .P. W .P. wasbor

n on A ugust 3 , 19 99. A

pe ti ti on a l l eg i ng W .P. to b e n

eg l ec ted wa s f i l ed on Augu st 6, 199 9. Tha t pet itio n alleged neglec t due t o a n injuriou s enviro nment be cau se t he
re spo ndent had be en pr eviou sly found u nfit o n Apr il 14, 1 998 , a nd t her e had been no subs equ ent f i nd i ng of f i tne ss . W .P. wasad

j udi ca ted to be ne glec ted , an

d the re sp ond

en t wa s f oun d un f i t on May 22, 2000. The respondent’s paren tal rights to W.P. were t ermi nated on Novem

ber 13, 2000, af ter sh e w as f oun d i n de f aul t. In c ase number 00– JA–2 93, T. P. was bor n on D ece mber 2 , 2 000 , a nd a p et itio n alleging that T.P . was negl

ected was fi

le d on Decem

ber 7, 2000. That petition al le ged that T.P. was n eg l ec ted du e to a n i n j uri ous en v i ron men t i n th at th e res pon den t h ad b een prev i ous l y f oun d u n f i t,5

an d there wa s n o su bs eq ue nt f i nd i ng of f i tne ss . The re sp ond

en t wa s f oun d un f i t asto T.P. on May 7, 2001. The respondent subse quently surrendered he

r parental ri

ghts to T .P., and her paren tal ri ghts were term i na ted on A ugust 25, 2004
. B.P . wa s b orn

on J an ua ry 22, 200 2, a

nd a p eti ti on a l l eg i ng ne glec t of

B.P . wa s f

i l ed on Janu ar y 28, 200 2. Tha t pet itio n alleged t hat B. P. was neglec t ed d ue t o a n injuriou s enviro nment i n th at the re sp ond

en t ha d b een prev

i ous l y f oun d un f i t, an d there wa s n o su bs eq uent f i nd i ng of f i tn es s. B. P. was

f oun d n eg l ected on A pri l 22 , 20 02 , a

n d th e res pon den t wa s f oun d u n f i t as to B.P. on August 26, 2002. The respondent’s parental righ ts to B.P. were termin

ated on Decemb er 8, 2004
. Q.P. wa s b orn on

Au gust 4, 2 003, a

nd a ne glect peti

tion wasf i l ed on Au gust 8, 2 003. Tha t pet itio n alleged t hat Q. P. was neglec t ed d ue t o a n injuriou s enviro nment in t hat t he responde nt ha d bee n prev i ousl y foun d unf i t, and there was n

o subs equen

t fi ndi ng of fi tness . Q.P.
wasadj udi

cated n egl ected, a nd th e res ponde nt wa s f ound u nf i t as to Q.P. on Novem

ber 5, 200 3. Her parental ri

ghts to Q. P. were termin

ated on July

6, 2005, after she def

aul ted. In case n umber 06–JA–163, K.C. was born on Jun

e 30, 2006, and a negl

ect petition was f i l ed on J ul y 10, 200 6. K.C. an

d J .C. ha ve the sa me m othe r an d f ather. Th e n

eg l ec t pe ti

ti on alle ge d t ha t K. C. wa s ne gle ct ed be ca us e t he r es po nd en t ha d b ee n fo un d u nfit in p r ev io us juv en ile
cas es wi th no sub seq

uen t fi ndi ng of f i tnes s; the re spon

den t had f ail ed to com

plete nece ssa

ry servi ces i n prior cases; K .C.’s f

ather had push

ed the respondent i

nto a wall ; an

d K.C.’s f ather had been convi cted of driv

in g under the i

nf lue nce of a lc ohol i n 2004. K.C. was f

ound to be n

egl ected on October 17, 2006, and the respondent was f ound unf it as to K.C. followi

ng a di spositional hear ing o n No vember 2 1, 200 6. At a per manency re view hea ring in Mar ch 20 08, t he co ur t fou nd6

that t he responden

t had ma de m ix ed eff ort s to achiev

e the goal of returni

ng K .C. home. Af

ter
another pe

rm anency he ari ng i n J ul y 2008, th e res ponde nt wa s f ound to rem

ai n un f i t. Coun sel i ng r ecords f rom L utheran Soci al Serv i ces were al so pres en

ted to the court. These reports in

dic ate that whil

e the respondent’s attendan ce at her counsel

in g sessi ons was im provin g, she conti

nued to fai

l to att end ses si ons wi

thout calli ng. The records al so in

dic ate that the r espo ndent’s t herapist, Mary Hor nsby, had co ncerns reg arding the r espo ndent and t he mi nor’s f ath er ’s ab i l i ty to pa re n t. O n A ug us t 29 , 20 08 , H ornsb

y atte n de d a v i si t b etween th e res pon den t, th e f ath er an d K .C . a t th e p aren

ts’ ap ar tmen t. H ornsb y n oted th at th e p aren ts d i d n ot ap pe ar to be attentive to safety h

azards f or K.C. such as an

open staircas e and runn

in g with a long, poi nted
com b . H ornsb

y also n oted th at th e res pon den t an d th e f ath er “ con ti n ue d to g i v e adul t mea n i n g to [K. C. ’s] act ions. ” At t he co nclusio n of t he hea ring o n t he inst ant neglec t pet itio n, t he co ur t fou nd that t he peti

tion was proven

in its en tirety b y the preponderance of the e

vi dence an d, thus, that J.C. was n

egl ected. On No vember 4 , 2 008 , t he co ur t held a d ispo sitio nal hear ing in the insta nt cas e. The respondent subm

itted proo f of

her compl

etion of a dom

estic v iolence curri

cul um through h

er counselor. Jessica W

olf ram, the partie s’ case

worker t hrough Lutheran Social Services, answered que st ions a t t he hea ring. Wolfra m sta t ed t hat she w as no t re co mmending any new s er vices fo r t he resp onde nt at tha t tim e, but that sh

e had con cerns reg ardi

ng th e res ponde nt’s paren tin g ab i l i ty. The re spo ndent had c omp lete d almos t all of her re quir ed s er vices, but Wolfra m sta t ed t hat t he
re sp on den

t n ee de d to v

i si t J. C. moreof

ten an d dem on strate an ab i l i ty to pa re n t. W ol f ra m also s ub m i tted a d i sp osi ti on al h ea ri n g r ep ort, a

se rvi ce pl an an d a n as se ssmen

t to the cou rt pr i or to th e d

i sp osi ti ona l he ari ng , wh i ch the cou rt sta ted i t ha d re vi ew ed . A t the ti me of7

these repo rts, the respo ndent was li vi ng with J.C.’s f

ather in an apartment i

n Peoria, Illi

nois. Wol fram al so report ed that the respondent remai ned i n excelle nt contact with her an

d has b een wil li ng to part ic ipa

te in s ervices. There was n o indi cation that the respondent had us ed i ll egal drugs si nce 2003. The responde

nt had un dergone a psy

chol ogical

eval uation on Jan

uary 11, 200 7, in conne ct ion wit h K.C. ’s neg lect cas e, and w as p ar t icipat ing in cou nseling. T he resp onde nt’s i ni tia l partici pation i n c ouns el i ng was s poradi c, but had rece

ntl y be com e m ore consi stent. The respondent had b een twi ce termi nated from

domesti c vi

olen ce classes due to her
excess iv e absen ces, but had com

ple ted a domestic v

iolence curri

cul um through h

er in div idua l counsel in g. Wolf ram i ndicated that she bel

ie ved that the respondent and the m in or’s father h

ad made p ro gr ess w ith t heir se rvice p lan, bu t she r emained c onc er ned a bou t bot h par ent s’ pa re nt ing abil ity due to their delayed cog nitiv e functioning. Wolfram repor ted that each pare nt’s ps ycho lo gic al e va lua t io n ind ica t ed t he y may r eq uir e a ss ist an ce pa r en t ing t he ir c hild r en fr o m a resp onsi bl e adu l t. The re spo ndent at t ende d her wee kly visi t s wit h K.C. Ho weve r, Wolfra m rep or t ed t hat t he respondent needed i

ntense an d constant guidan

ce wi th parentin

g durin g these visi

ts. Wolf ram stated that i

t di d not ap

pear th at the re spon

den t unde rstood K.C .’sdevelopmen tal stage . In addi tion , the re spon

den t appea red to ne ed h

el p wi th cooki ng. At t he co nclusio n of t he hea ring, t he co ur t fou nd t hat it w as in J. C. ’s bes t inter est t o be
made a ward of the c ourt. The c ourt foun d the resp ondent to be u

nf i t and una bl e to care f or, pr ot ect , t ra in, o r d iscipline J.C . a nd named DCFS as g uar dian o f J.C. The co ur t indicat ed t hat t he ba sis fo rit s d ec isio n w as t he r es po nd en t ’s 20 07 ps ycho lo gic al e va lua t io n, he rpa r t icip at io n in services, and h

er dif fi culties i n carin g for a chil

d. Furt her, the co urt found the father unfi t because8

of a posi tive drug test. The court o rdered both parents to undergo a new psy chol ogical
ev al uation. The res

ponde nt ap peal ed. AN

AL YSIS I. Neglect On appeal, the respondent first mai ntains that the tr ial

cour t err ed by

fi ndi ng J.C.
ne glec ted due to an i njuri ousen vi ron men t be ca us e that f i nd i ng wa s a gai ns t the man i f es t we i gh t of the eviden

ce. The respo ndent conte nds that t he previous fin din gs of the respo ndent’s unf itness
werei rre l ev an t to the c our

t’s deter m i n ati on of n eg l ect i n th i s c as e b ec au se

th e S tate f ai l ed to pro ve J.C. was neglected under the t heory of antici pato ry negl

ect. The Stat e disagrees,
co nt ending t hat t he co ur t pr op er ly f ou nd t hat J.C . w as ne glect ed d ue t o a n injuriou s enviro nment ba sed upon a theory of a ntici patory ne glect. Under s ection 2–3 (1)(b ) of th e Act, a negl

ected m i nor i nc l udes “a ny m i nor un der 18 years of age whose envi

ronment is i

nj urious to hi s or her welfare.” 705 ILCS 40 5/2–3(1 )(b) (West 2008). The terms “

negl ect” and “i

nj urious en

vi ronmen t” do not have fi

xed m eani ngs, but rather the m ean i ngs va ry wi th the f acts a nd c i rcum stan ces of a particul ar ca se. In re Arthur H. , 21 2 I ll. 2d 441, 463, 819 N.E. 2d 734, 746 (2004). “Thus, cases i nvol vi ng such alle gations are sui ge ne r is and m

ust be decided on the basi s of thei r in div idua l f acts.” In re K.L.S-P. , 383 Ill . App.3d 287, 29 2, 891 N .E.2d 946 , 950 (2 008). The St at e bea rs t he bur den o f pro ving allegat ions o f neglect by a pr epo nder ance of t he
evi den ce. K.L.S-P. , 383 Ill . App.3d at 291, 891 N.E .2d at 950. We revi ew a trial court ’s n egl ect f i ndi ng to determ

i ne wh ethe r that f i ndi ng was a gai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. K.L.SP. , 3 83 I ll. App. 3d a t 291 -9 2, 891 N. E. 2d a t 950 . A finding is ag ainst t he manifest weight of t he9

evi den ce on l y wh en the opp osi

te conc l usi on i s cl earl y evi den t. K.L.S-P. , 383 Ill . App.3d at 292, 891 N .E.2d at 95 0. In t his case , t he r esp ond ent co nt ends t hat t he findings in pr eviou s ca ses br ou ght unde r t he Act that she was an

unf it parent are i

rrelev ant to t he determi

nation of J.C.’s ne gle ct, citin

g Arthur H. , 2 12 I ll. 2d 4 41, 819 N. E. 2d 7 34. In Arthur H. , the supreme c ourt fi rst hel d “that the Act inst ruc t s t he cir cu it co ur t du r ing t he ad jud ica t o ry hea r ing t o de t er mine w he t he rt he ch ild is
ne glec ted , an

d n ot whether th

e p are nts are ne glec tf ul ” a nd tha t the appe l l atecou

rt’ s “ an al y sis of the relati ve b la me of each parent for the chi

ld’ s negl ect was im

proper.” Arthur H. , 212 Ill . 2d at 467 , 8 19 N .E .2 d at 749 . T he co ur t t hen co nsider ed w het her t he t rial co ur t er re d by finding the mi nor neglected and concl

uded that the tr ia

l c ourt ’s f in din g that t he m

in or was neglected under the theory

of a ntici patory ne gl ect wa s ag ai

nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Arthur H. , 212 Ill. 2d at 467 -7 0, 819 N. E. 2d a t 749 -5 1. Thu s, w e ag re e wit h t he r esp ond ent ’s st at ement t hat t he f ocus a t the ad j udicatory

stage of proceed

i ngs und er the Act is wh ethe r the m i nor i s negl

ected. This does not mean however, as the respo ndent appears t o arg ue, t hat a prior findi ng of unf itness i s i rre l evan t to a neg l ec t de term

i na ti on. Ju st a s th

e f ac ts a nd ci rcu m sta nc esl eadi ng to a p rior finding of abu se o r ne glect ar e r elevant t o a neglec t det er minatio n (Arthur H. , 212 Ill . 2d at 468, 819 N.E .2d at 749-50) , so t oo are the facts and circumstances l eading to a fi

ndi ng of unf itness relev ant to a neglect determi

nation (s ee In re D.F. , 201 Ill .2d 476, 500-01, 777 N. E.2d 930, 944 (2002 ) (conc l

udi ng “ that de pen di ng on the ty pe of ne glect al

l eged , evi den

ce of ne glect toward
one child may be releva nt t o t he qu est ion o f a par ent 's fitnes s wit h re spe ct t o a not her child”) ). We
ca ut io n, ho we ver , t hat jus t as a p rio r n eg lec t finding is no t evid enc e o f per se negl ect of another chi ld ( Arthur H. , 21 2 Il

l . 2d at 4 68, 819N.E .2d

at 7 49) , a prior f

i nd i ng of unf i tne ss doe s n ot10

prove per se negl

ect (see A.W. , 23 1 Il

l . 2d at 1 05, 896

N.E .2d at 3 24 ( af

f i rm i ng f i nd i ng of unfitne ss whe re re spo ndent had be en pr eviou sly found u nfit and failed t o p ro duc e evide nce t hat he had taken steps t o co rrect the conditions that led to the previous unfi tness deter mi

nation); see al so In re D.C. , 2 09 I ll. 2d 2 87, 299 -3 02, 807 N. E. 2d 4 72, 478 -8 0 ( 200 4) (r eject ing St at e’s a rg ument that “ unf i tnes s as to one ch i l d i s un f i tnes s as to all ” an d hol di ng th at when deci di ng w hether a par ent is unfit u nder sec t ion 1 (D )( m)(iii) o f the Ado pt ion Act co ur t s must find “clear and
con v i n ci n g ev i den ce

of a l ack of re as on ab l e p rogre ss

du ri n g th e a pp l i ca b l e ti me p eri od wi

th
res pe ct to each

chi l d”)). In the instant case, t he reco rd co ntains evidence bey ond t he recitat ion of the r espo ndent’s status as un

f i t in prior case s tha

t supports a

f i ndi ng of ne glect un

der the the ory

of a ntici patory neglec t . “U nder t he ant icipat or y neglect t heo ry, t he St at e se eks t o p ro t ect not only childre n who
are th e d i re ct v i cti m s of n eg l ect or a

b us e, b ut al so t

h ose wh o h av e a prob ab i l i ty to b e s ub j ect to negl ect or abuse because the

y res ide , or in the f

uture may resi de, with an

in div idua l wh o has been found to have n

egl ected or abused another chi ld.” Arthur H. , 212 Ill . 2d at 468, 819 N. E.2d at 749 . Proof

of ne glec t of

one m i nor i s adm i ss i bl e on the i ss ueof the ne glec t of

an y othe r m i nor f or wh o m t he pa r en t is r es po nsib le. 70 5 I LC S 4 05 /2 –1 8( 3) ( We st 20 08 )
. Ho we ve r , t he su pr eme co ur t has e mphasize d “t hat t he mere admissibili t y of evidenc e do es no t co nst itu t e co nclusive proo f of the negl ect of another mi

nor.” Arthur H. , 212 Il

l . 2d at 46 8, 819 N .E.2d at 75 0. In othe r wor ds , “the re i s n o per se ru le tha t t he neg lect of o ne child co nclusively est ablishes t he negl ect of another chi

ld i n the sam e househol

d.” Arthur H. , 212 Ill . 2d at 468, 819 N. E.2d at 749 . “Ra t her , ‘s uch ne glect sho uld be mea sur ed no t only by the c ircu msta nces sur ro unding t he si bl in g, but also by

the care and condi

tion of the ch

il d in question.’ ” Arthur H. , 212 Ill . 2d at11

468, 819 N.E.2d at 749-50 quot in g In re Edward T. , 343 Ill . App. 3d 778, 797, 799 N.E. 2d 304 (20 03) ; s eealso In re Edricka C. , 276 Il l . Ap p. 3d 18 , 29-31 , 657 N .E.2d 78, 8 5-86 (1 995). Neverthel ess, the suprem

e court also recognizes

that “when

face d with e

vi dence of prior negl

ect by parents, ‘the j uven

il e court should not be forced to refrai n f rom takin g action un

til each particular chi

ld s uff ers an i nj ury.’ ” Arthur H. , 2 12 I ll. 2d a t 477 , 8 19 N .E .2 d at 754 -5 5 qu ot ing In re Brooks , 63 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 32 8, 339, 3 79 N.E.2 d 872 ( 1978)
. Prior to J.C. ’s adjudication as a neglect ed min or in 2008, seven o f the respo ndent’s childre n wer e fo und ne glect ed be t wee n 199 7 and 200 6. The re spo ndent ’s pa re nt al right s have be en t er minat ed as t o six o f t ho se ch ildr en , an d c as e n umb er 06 –J A– 16 3, invo lving K. C. , is ong oing . While Z. P. and A. P. wer e fo und ne glect ed d ue t o a ct s by the re spo ndent , e ach o f the
res pon dent’ s s ub se que nt c hi l dre n– W .P., T.P. , B. P. Q .P., K .C. an d J .C. – have b een r

em ove d f rom he r ca re s hor tl y af ter h i s or he r b i rth an d al l appa ren tl y f oun d neg l ec ted

un der th e theory

of ant icipat or y neglect . T hus, 11 yea rs ha ve pa ssed bet wee n t he circ umst ance s o f Z.P .’s neglec t and the al l eg ati ons of J.C .’ s n eg l ec t, an d 10 yea rs ha ve pa ss ed be twe en the si m i l ar c i rcu m sta nc esof A.P.’s ne gle ct and the i

nstant alle gations. Courts have f ound a l engthy

period of ti

me between all egat ions of neglect o r abuse, withou t evidence o f current conditio ns of the cu rrent chil d’s
ne glect or ab

use , to be i

ns uf f i cien t to prove an

tic i patory ne glect. Edricka C. , 276 Ill . App 3d at 28- 31, 657 N. E. 2d a t 84- 86. Significant t o t his case how ever , Z. P. and T .P . w er e bo t h fou nd
n eg l ec ted as i n f an ts d ue to th e res pon den t’s f ai l ur e to a tten d to th ei r m ed i ca l n ee dsan d f ai l ur e to feed the m properl y. Un der the unique fac

ts of this case, the court need not wait for another i nf an t, J. C., to be

ne glec ted

i n th e s am e m an ne r b ef ore f i nd i ng hi m ne glec ted

un der th e theory

of
an tic i patory ne gl ect.12

In addi ti on, the ci rcu m sta nc esof the i nte rv en i ng yea rs be twe en the f i nd i ng s of ne glec t of Z.P. and the instant all

egat ions suppo rt a fi

nding of antici

pat or y negl

ect of J.C. The resp ondent ’s invo lve men t wit h D CF S h as be en almo st co nt inu o us sinc e h er firs t ch ild, Z. P. , wa s a pp r o ximat ely six mont hs o ld. T he ca ses invo lving the re spo ndent ’s next five children a ppe ar t o o ver lap o r be sep ar at ed by o nly a few mont hs at most , a nd ea ch o f tho se c ase s end ed w ith t he t er minatio n of t he respondent’s paren

tal rights. It appears from the record bef ore us that t he responden t surrendered h er ri gh ts to two of

th ose m i n ors , de f aul ted to two oth er s, an

d w as f oun d u n f i t af ter a tr i al as to t he r emaining tw o. The n, a ppr oximat ely one yea r lap ses be for e K. C. was bor n and fo und neglec t ed. J.C . w as bo rn a ppr oximat ely two years late r, while K.C. re mained in fost er car e. The respondent was f

ound to remai

n unf it as to K.C. at a permane ncy review heari

ng j ust weeks befo re J.C .’s birt h. Fur t her mor e, altho ugh t he evide nce s how ed t hat at t he t ime of t he ad judicat or y hearing the respondent had com

ple ted domestic v

iolence trai

ni ng an d a psy chol ogical

eval uation, other required se

rvices were still

ongoing. The

respondent’s therapist, Mary Hornsb y, rem ai ned
co ncer ned r ega rd ing bo t h par ent ’s ability t o p ar ent and r epo rt ed incide nt s whe re she o bser ved t he parents’ apparen

t lack of un

derstandi ng of K.C.’s saf

ety an d devel opmen tal ab il ities. Li kewi se, Dr. Velez indi

cat ed in the 2007 psychological eval uat ion, which was conduc ted as part of K.C.’s ongoi ng n egl ect ca se, that the c ourt shoul d be cauti ous i n returni ng K.C. to the re spon

den t’s c are. Thu s, w e co nclude t hat t he t rial co ur t ’s finding t hat J.C . w as ne glect ed w as no t aga inst t he
ma nifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. II. U nf

itness Next , t he r esp ond ent maintains t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d by finding her u nfit at t he13

conclusion of t he dispositional hearing. The St ate cont ends that the qu estion o f the respo ndent’s f i tn es s is m oot i n th i s c as e b ec au se

th e c our t also f oun d th at sh e w as

un ab l e to c are f

or, prote ct, trai n or disci pli ne J.C. At the dis positi onal stage of proceedin

gs under the A

ct, t he court shall de

termi ne wh ether i t is i n the b est i

ntere sts of

the publ i c an d the m i nor tha t the m i nor b e m ade a ward of the c ourt. 70 5 I LC S 4 05 /2 –2 2( 1) ( We st 20 08 )
. I f t he mino ris ma de a w ar d o f t he co ur t , t he co ur t sha ll then determ i ne the proper disposi

tion of the m i nor. 70 5 ILC S 405/

2–22( 1) (West 200 8). A mino rfo un d t o be ne gle ct ed an d ma de a w ar d o f t he co ur t may be ( 1) co nt inu ed in t he ca r e o f his parent, guardian

or legal custodian; (2) resto red to the custody of h is parent, guardian

or legal
cu sto di an ; (3 ) ord

ered pa rtial l y or c om pl ete l y em an ci pa ted ; or (4 ) p l ac ed

i n ac corda n ce wi th
section 2–27 of the A ct. 705 IL CS 40 5/2–2 3(1)(a ) (We st 2008 ). “Ho weve r, in any case in which a minor is fo und by t he co ur t t o be
ne glec ted or ab us ed un de r Se cti on 2 -3 of thi s A ct, c us tody of the m i nor sh al l not be res tored to an y pa ren t, guard i an or leg al cu stod i an wh ose ac ts or om

i ss i ons or bot h have be en ident ifi

ed, pur sua nt t o s ubse ct ion ( 1) of S ect ion 2 -2 1, as fo rming t he ba sis fo rt he co ur t 's f

ind ing o f ab us e o rne gle ct , un t il su ch t ime a s a he ar ing is h el d on th e iss ue of th e b est i n terests o f th e m i n or a n d th e f i tn es s of such pa re n t, gua rd ian or legal cu st od ian to car e fo r t he minor wit hou t enda nger ing t he minor 's heal th or safety, an

d the court enters an order that such parent, guardia n or legal
cus todia n is f i t to care f or the m i nor.” 7 05 IL CS 40 5/2-23 (1)(a) (W est 200 8). I f t he co ur t de t er mines t ha t a p ar en t , gu ar dia n o rleg al c us t o dia n is “ un fit o rar e u na ble , fo rso me reason othe r th an f i na nc i al ci rcu m sta nc esal one , to ca re f or, p rotect, trai

n or di sc i pl i ne the m i nor14

or are u nw i l l i ng to do s o,” a

nd tha t the be st i nte res t of the m i nor wi l l be j eop ard ize d if the m i nor remai ns i n the custody of

hi s or her parents, guardian or custo dia

n, the court may , in

ter alia, com m i t the m i nor to DCF S f

or care a nd s ervi ce. 70 5 ILC S 405/ 2–27( 1) (West 200 8). On
revi ew, the tri al

court's di sposi tion al deci sion wi l l be reverse d onl

y i f the f i ndi ngs of f act are aga inst t he manifest weight of t he evide nce o r t he t rial co ur t co mmi t t ed a n abus e o f discr et ion by sel ecti ng a n i na ppropri ate disposi

tion
. In r e T a. A. , 384 Ill . App. 3d 303, 306, 891 N.E. 2d 1034, 1037- 1038 ( 2008) In th i s ca se, the tri al

court f ound th e res ponde nt to be both unf

i t and una bl e to care f or, pr ot ect , t ra in or discipline J. C. In he r a ppe llate br ief, t he r esp ond ent do es no t challenge t he
co ur t ’s finding t hat she is una ble to car e fo r, pr ot ect , t ra in or discipline J. C. Thu s, t he r esp ond ent has wai ved a chal

len ge to that findi

ng. Off ici al Reports Advance Sheet No . 15 (July 16, 2008), R. 341((h )(7), ef f . Jul y 1, 2008
. As to the t rial court ’s fi

nding that t he respo ndent is unfi t, we co nclude that the co urt ’s fi ndi ng was n ot agai nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. Al though the respondent had compl eted some of h

er required se

rvices, counsel

in g and v is its were still

ongoing. W

olf ram stated at the disposi

tional heari ng that the respondent neede d to vi si t J.C. more often and dem onstrate an abi li ty to parent. Bo th Wolf

ram an d the respondent’s therapist, Hor nsb y, rem ai ned concern

ed regarding the respo ndent’s abi li ty to parent. Wolf

ram report ed that the respo ndent needed in tense
an d c o nst an t gu ida nc e w it h p ar en t ing du r ing t he r es po nd en t ’s visit s w it h K. C. I t is no t cle ar ly
evi den t from thi s ev i den ce that the re spon

den t was f i t to care f or, protect, trai

n or disci pli ne J.C. Thus, the tr ial cour t d id not err by f inding the re spo ndent unfit and co mm itt ing J.C. to DCFS guard i an sh i p.15 CONCLUSION We co nclude t hat t he t rial co ur t ’s findings o f neglect and u nfitness wer e no t aga inst t he
man ifes t we igh t o f t he ev ide nc e. Ac co r din gly, t he jud gme nt o f t he Pe o r ia C o un t y cir cu it co ur t is aff irm ed. Af fi rmed. HOLDRIDGE and W

RIGHT, J. J. concurring.