Court Opinion

ID: 9819491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:26:18.257071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:30.671533
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent and disagree with the majority’s disposition, which reverses the trial court’s adjudication of neglect. This court’s standard of review is manifest weight while the trial court’s order is based upon preponderance of the evidence. Section 2—3(1)(b) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2—3(1) (b) (West 2000)) concerns a child under 18 years whose environment is injurious to her welfare. The section does not put the onus on mom and dad to the exclusion of the child. In the instant case, mom and the child are the principals involved in the environment injurious to the child’s welfare. E.M., perchance through no fault of her own, has developed into a belligerent, aggressive, and untruthful 10 year old. The mother must assume some of this responsibility. At 10 years old, E.M.’s emotional makeup and personality are also appropriate factors to be considered by the trial court in its finding of an environment injurious to her welfare. Here, it appears to be a combination of all the parties involved, but especially the child. This child is more than a handful. Parents can be sincere and want to do what is best for the child, but the honest mistakes made by mom and the child’s unwillingness to help herself are sufficient to prove neglect. As suggested by the State’s brief, “neglect” can result from either willful or unintentional disregard of parental duty (In re Brooks, 63 Ill. App. 3d 328, 337, 379 N.E.2d 872, 879 (1978)) and cannot be defined with particularity (In re S.D., 220 Ill. App. 3d at 502, 581 N.E.2d at 161). I also agree with the reference to section 2—3(1)(b) and its background set forth in the majority (328 Ill. App. 3d at 640). The respondent by her own testimony acknowledged the need for action on her part and this can be considered as evidence of neglect. The evidence reviewed by the majority is more than sufficient to justify the trial court’s finding of neglect and a disposition with a permanency goal of return home within 12 months. We should affirm the trial court’s judgment.