Court Opinion

ID: 9882059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:20:47.582323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:39.586818
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (5th) 230368-U
             NOTICE
                                                                                         NOTICE
 Decision filed 10/03/23. The
                                                                              This order was filed under
 text of this decision may be      NOS. 5-23-0368, 5-23-0369, 5-23-0370,
                                                                              Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
 changed or corrected prior to
                                                                              not precedent except in the
 the filing of a Petition for           5-23-0371, 5-23-0372 cons.            limited circumstances allowed
 Rehearing or the disposition of
                                                                              under Rule 23(e)(1).
 the same.
                                                 IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                               FIFTH DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

In re K.G., H.G., L.G., H.G., and O.G., Minors
                                          )     Appeal from the
                                          )     Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois,     )     Marion County.
                                          )
       Petitioner-Appellee,               )     Nos. 22-JA-22, 22-JA-23,
v.                                        )          22-JA-24, 22-JA-25, and
                                          )          22-JA-51
A.G.,                                     )
                                          )     Honorable Ericka A. Sanders,
       Respondent-Appellant).             )     Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

         JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court.
         Justices Welch and Vaughan concurred in the judgment.

                                               ORDER

¶1       Held: The circuit court made explicit and sufficient oral findings during the
               adjudicatory hearing. The circuit court’s findings in the adjudicatory and
               dispositional orders were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶2       The respondent, A.G. (Mother), appeals the adjudicatory and dispositional orders entered

by the circuit court of Marion County in the juvenile cases for her five children. Mother claims

that the circuit court failed to make explicit and sufficient oral findings during the adjudication of

neglect hearing and that the dispositional orders based on the adjudicatory orders should be

vacated. Mother additionally claims that the circuit court’s determinations were against the

manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm as modified.

                                                    1
¶3                                     I. BACKGROUND

¶4     The respondent, A.G. (Mother), is the biological mother and S.G. (Father) is the biological

father of K.G., born June 7, 2016, H.G.1., born May 27, 2015, L.G., born October 5, 2020, H.G.2.,

born November 28, 2018, and O.G., born October 1, 2022. 1 The State brought separate juvenile

cases for each of the five children in the circuit court of Marion County. The five cases were

consolidated on appeal. Father is not a party to the appeal.

¶5     On April 12, 2022, the State filed petitions for adjudication for the four oldest children,

and the circuit court held a shelter care hearing. 2 During the shelter care hearing, Bobbie Ball, the

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) investigator, testified. Ball testified that

when she was investigating the complaint, H.G.1. disclosed to Ball that Father would stick his

finger into H.G.1.’s butt. H.G.1. referred to this as “wimpy whompy time.” H.G.1. also disclosed

that Father slept in a bed with H.G.1. and Father would “hump” her.

¶6     Ball testified that Mother told Ball that H.G.1. had urinary tract infections from “sticking

the baby doll’s foot in her vaginal area.” Ball had advised Mother to take H.G.1. to the Amy Center,

a facility that interviews children who have allegedly been sexually abused, physically abused, or

are victims of trauma, for a forensic interview. Mother refused to cooperate and declined a safety

plan. Because Mother refused to cooperate with the investigation, the children were taken into

protective custody. DCFS was granted temporary custody and guardianship of the children.

¶7     After O.G.’s birth on October 1, 2022, he was taken into protective custody. The State filed

a juvenile petition for O.G. claiming that O.G. was neglected based on the removal of his siblings

       1
         The respondent’s brief distinguished two of the minor children with the initials H.G. as H.G.1.
and H.G.2. We also refer to H.G., born May 27, 2015, as H.G.1., and H.G., born November 28, 2018, as
H.G.2.
       2
         On this date, Mother was pregnant with her fifth child.
                                                   2
from his parents’ care and the conditions had not been corrected, in violation of section 2-3(1)(b)

of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)).

DCFS was granted temporary custody and guardianship of O.G. after a shelter care hearing.

¶8     After the filing of O.G.’s petition, the State filed amended petitions for adjudication of

wardship for K.G., H.G.1., L.G., and H.G.2. The amended petitions alleged that the minors were

in an environment injurious to their welfare and that Mother and Father failed to provide the proper

education as required by state law in violation of sections 2-3(1)(a) and (b) of the Juvenile Court

Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a), (b) (West 2020)). Generally, the State alleged sexual abuse by Father

to K.G. and H.G.1. The State additionally alleged that because K.G. and H.G.1. were harmed, their

siblings were in an injurious environment, and there were allegations the children were not

receiving a proper education. The five petitions were not identical as the paragraphs that described

the allegations of abuse were specific to the individual child.

¶9     In In re K.G., No. 22-JA-22 (Cir. Ct. Marion County), the State averred in paragraph three

of the amended petition that K.G. was “neglected in that [K.G.’s] environment is injurious to his

welfare, in that [K.G.] has alleged he does not feel safe at home and that [Father] hurts him and

has sexually abused he and his siblings, causing his environment to be unsafe, in violation of 705

ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) [(West 2020)].” Paragraph four of the amended petition averred that “[K.G.’s]

environment is injurious to his welfare, in that [K.G.’s] sister has alleged that she does not feel

safe at home and that [Father] ‘humps’ her and stuck his finger in her butt, causing his environment

to be unsafe, in violation of 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) [(West 2020)].” The State additionally averred

in paragraph five that K.G. was neglected because his parents did not provide the proper or

necessary support, education, medical or necessary support, where K.G.’s parents were contacted

                                                 3
by the school with concerns, in violation of section 2-3(1)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS

405/2-3(1)(a) (West 2020)).

¶ 10   In In re H.G., No. 22-JA-23 (Cir. Ct. Marion County), the State averred in paragraph three

of the amended petition that H.G.1. was “neglected in that [H.G.1.’s] environment is injurious to

her welfare, in that said minor has alleged that she does not feel safe at home and that her father

‘humps’ her and stuck his finger in her butt,” in violation of section 2-3(b) of the Juvenile Court

Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(b) (West 2020)). In paragraph four, the State averred that H.G.1.’s

environment was injurious in that her brother alleged that he feels unsafe, and that Father hurt and

had sexually abused him and their siblings, in violation of section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court

Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)). The State additionally averred the same allegation in

paragraph five of K.G.’s petition as paragraph five in H.G.1.’s petition.

¶ 11   In paragraph three of the State’s amended petitions for In re L.G., 22-JA-24 (Cir. Ct.

Marion County), and In re H.G., 22-JA-25 (Cir. Ct. Marion County), the State claimed the children

were neglected due to an injurious environment where their sister had alleged that she does not

feel safe at home and that [Father] “humps” her and stuck his finger in her butt, in violation of

section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)). Paragraph four

of both amended petitions stated that the minors were neglected in that they were in an injurious

environment where their brother alleged that he did not feel safe at home and Father hurts and

sexually abused him and his siblings, in violation of section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act

(705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)). Paragraph five of both amended petitions averred that their

parents failed to provide proper or necessary support, education, or medical or other remedial care

where their parents have failed to provide their siblings with proper assistance with school, in

violation of section 2-3(1)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a) (West 2020)).

                                                 4
¶ 12    The circuit court began the adjudicatory hearing on December 13, 2022. Bobbie Ball, the

investigator with DCFS, testified. Ball was familiar with the oldest four children involved. During

her investigation, K.G. had disclosed to Ball that he did not feel safe with Father. H.G.1. disclosed

to Ball that she did not feel safe with Father because of “wimpy wampy time” and Father “humps”

her.

¶ 13    Ball testified that when she interviewed Mother, she told Ball that H.G.1. had urinary tract

infections and H.G.1. would “use a baby doll’s feet and shove them in her vagina.” Mother stopped

allowing H.G.1. to play with her dolls because of H.G.1.’s behavior. Mother indicated that she

believed that Donna Head, the children’s maternal grandmother, coached the children to make

allegations so Donna could gain custody. Unfounded allegations had been made by Donna in the

past.

¶ 14    Ball testified that after the children were removed from their parents’ care, each child

received a wellness check. While K.G. was in the exam room with Ball, the doctor, and a nurse,

K.G. stated that “my daddy bites my pee pee,” and that he did not feel safe at home. H.G.1. also

stated that she did not feel safe at home during her examination. Ball could not recall whether

H.G.1. provided a reason as to why she felt unsafe. H.G.1. disclosed that Father hurt her private

area and that Father caused her “butt to bleed.”

¶ 15    Abigail Cowser-Barnett, the medical social associate with Children’s Medical and Mental

Health Resource Network, testified as an expert witness. Abigail met H.G.1. to perform a

specialized medical examination. H.G.1. disclosed that “mommy whoops them.” H.G.1. was

initially excited when she met Abigail but became “very anxious” during her appointment. Abigail

found H.G.1. to be “very agitated” and her “anxiety was extremely high.” The doctor only

completed a limited physical examination. When the doctor attempted to complete the genital

                                                   5
portion of the exam, “[H.G.1.] escalated very quickly with her anxiety and panic and a very fear-

based response.” The examination stopped when H.G.1. was not responsive to any attempts to

calm her down.

¶ 16   Abigail testified that they have toys and “regulation tools” to help children feel comfortable

in the examination room. H.G.1. had picked out a pink unicorn that she brought into the

examination room with her. H.G.1. informed the doctor that someone had injured the unicorn and

H.G.1. pointed “under the tail area of the backside of the unicorn.” Abigail testified that when

H.G.1. had pointed to the butt of the unicorn it raised a red flag as children do not typically identify

injuries, “especially in the genital area on a toy or stuffed animal.”

¶ 17   Kevin Cripps, a sheriff in Marion County, testified to investigating Mother and Father for

allegations of sexual abuse. During Cripps’ interview with Mother, she disclosed the children may

have seen Mother and Father having sex. Mother also disclosed an incident where Father had

injured H.G.1. during a game that the family played called “Uncle Ray Ray.” Mother explained

that to play “Uncle Ray Ray” a person would take two fingers and “poke” the buttocks area of the

person that they are “Ray Ray’g.” Mother said that the game was normally played over clothing,

but there was a chance that it could have been played under clothing. Mother additionally informed

Cripps that in late 2021 or early 2022, Father “Ray Ray’d” H.G.1. and “he went past the rectum,

all the way to the vaginal area, and actually caused injury to the vagina area.” Father had caused

H.G.1. to bleed and Mother considered using a sanitary pad for the blood. Cripps testified that he

questioned Father about the “Uncle Ray Ray” game and Father admitted to playing the game but

denied injuring a child.

                                                   6
¶ 18   Taryn Smith, the children’s youth pastor, testified. At Donna Head’s request, Taryn met

with H.G.1. at the church on two occasions. Taryn testified that during their second meeting,

H.G.1. told Taryn that “[Father] put his private part on her private part, and it hurt.”

¶ 19   Beverly Cripps, Mother’s aunt, testified that in early April of 2022, Donna Head had

watched the children and H.G.1. did not want to return home. Donna Head asked Beverly to speak

to H.G.1. Beverly spoke to H.G.1., who said that she was afraid of Father. Beverly asked H.G.1.

how Father hurt her and H.G.1. pointed to her vagina. Beverly questioned H.G.1. on whether

Father hurt her siblings. H.G.1. told Beverly that Father “bit” H.G.2. “on the penis.” H.G.1.

additionally told Beverly that Mother protected L.G.

¶ 20   Brittany Durre, the foster mother of K.G. and H.G.2., testified that she attended the same

church as Donna. K.G. told Brittany that Father had “put his mouth on [K.G.’s] penis, penetrated

[K.G.’s] butthole with his hands, his penis.” K.G. also averred that Father had tied K.G.’s hands

while Father was on top of K.G. and that Mother wanted K.G. to put his mouth on her “private

body part.”

¶ 21   Brittany testified to an instance where K.G. had randomly stated, “[Father] always spit on

my butt.” Brittany questioned K.G. and K.G. additionally said, “He always spit on my butt before

he put his finger or his penis in it.” Brittany additionally testified that K.G. placed a toy shark on

his penis in the bathtub. Brittany questioned why he was doing that and K.G. responded, “Because

it feels good. It feels good when a mouth is on my penis.”

¶ 22   The adjudicatory hearing was continued to March 7, 2023. Kim Barbee-Tucker, the

forensic interviewer with the Amy Center, testified. Kim had interviewed K.G. on April 25, 2022.

During the interview, K.G. said that Mother was mean to him and K.G. mentioned H.G.1.’s “butt

bleeding,” but K.G. did not disclose details. Kim asked K.G. who he would tell if anyone tried to

                                                  7
hurt him. K.G. responded that he would tell a doctor. A video recording of the interview was

admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1, without objection.

¶ 23      Kim conducted a second interview with K.G. on June 8, 2022, after K.G. had disclosed

additional information to his foster mother. Kim testified that she was not aware of the new

allegations prior to conducting the second interview. The second interview was admitted into

evidence as Exhibit 2, without objection. During the second interview, K.G. stated that Mother

and Father touched K.G.’s butt and it hurt, that Father “put his pee pee inside [K.G.’s] mouth,”

and that Father had touched H.G.1. and H.G.2.

¶ 24      Kim testified that she had conducted approximately 500 interviews. She tried to avoid

interviewing a child several times. She explained that she had completed “quite a few” second

interviews with children when additional disclosures were made by the children. It was common

for a six-year-old child to disclose additional details over time.

¶ 25      Kim testified that she believed that K.G. was “very upfront.” K.G. was “quick to correct

[Kim]” and she “didn’t sense him hiding anything.” K.G. was full of energy and obtaining detail

or keeping him in the interview room for a long period of time was “very hard.” The State rested

after Kim’s testimony.

¶ 26      Mother testified, on her own behalf, and denied the allegations of abuse. Before the

children were removed from Mother’s care, Donna Head would watch the children on the

weekends and take the children to church. Mother believed that Donna contacted DCFS because

she wanted custody of H.G.1. Donna had called DCFS multiple times in the past and those

investigations were unfounded. Mother also testified that the foster parents belonged to Donna’s

church.

                                                  8
¶ 27   The parties stipulated that H.G.2. was interviewed at the Amy Center, H.G.2. had not made

disclosures of sexual abuse, and H.G.2. denied inappropriate touching. The parties additionally

stipulated to admit H.G.1.’s interview with the Amy Center into evidence, without objection.

¶ 28   After closing arguments, the circuit court reviewed the evidence and testimony relevant to

its findings. The circuit court stated that the State made several allegations and referred to

paragraph five as the allegation regarding the children’s failure to attend school. The circuit court

found that the State had presented no evidence regarding the children’s failure to attend school and

denied that allegation in the petitions.

¶ 29   The circuit court identified two other allegations as neglect alleging sexual and physical

abuse to H.G.1. and sexual and physical abuse to K.G. The circuit court stated that allegations

regarding H.G.1. were in paragraph three and allegations regarding K.G. were in paragraph four.

The circuit court did not state which petition it was referring to when referencing the paragraph

numbers.

¶ 30   The circuit court found that the State had proven the allegations regarding K.G. in

paragraph four of the petition by a preponderance of the evidence. The circuit court considered

that K.G.’s testimony was inconsistent, and that he was a high energy five- or six-year-old at the

time of the interview. The circuit court found that “[K.G.] unequivocally answered questions about

his sister’s butt bleeding and his dad hurting his pee pee.” K.G.’s testimony about H.G.1. was

corroborated by Mother. The circuit court found K.G. to be credible. The circuit court did not put

much weight on the testimony by witnesses who were not trained to interview children.

¶ 31   The circuit court found “with regard to paragraph three and H.G.1” that there was some

evidence of physical and sexual abuse. However, the State did not meet its burden of demonstrating

                                                 9
by a preponderance of the evidence the allegations involving H.G.1. because H.G.1. had indicated

that nothing happened to her. The circuit court additionally stated,

         “Only one finding of neglect or abuse is necessary given that the Court will find that all
        children have been abused as that is alleged in the petition when one child has been abused
        or neglected. In this case neglected.”

¶ 32    The written adjudicatory orders were entered on April 3, 2023, and written findings of fact

were omitted. The circuit court found that the children were in an environment that was injurious

to their welfare and that the abuse or neglect was inflicted by Father and the temporary custody

order remained in effect.

¶ 33    The Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) filed a report on March 28, 2023. Mother

had not received the DCFS service plan because Mother had not completed an integrated

assessment (IA). CASA’s recommendations included that DCFS continue to have custody and

guardianship of the five children, Mother consistently communicate with the caseworker, and

Mother complete an IA.

¶ 34    The dispositional reports were filed by the foster care manager on April 5, 2023. DCFS

recommended that DCFS continue to have guardianship of the five children and that expedited

termination of parental rights should be pursued. Visitation with Mother and Father was suspended

due to the severity of the allegations. Mother contacted her caseworker for the first time on March

20, 2023, to discuss visitation and she was told to meet with her caseworker to discuss her service

plan. Mother agreed to a service plan meeting. Father, however, ended the scheduling phone call

after he told the caseworker that the allegations were not true, and that Mother and Father refused

to participate in services.

¶ 35    The circuit court held the dispositional hearing on April 17, 2023. The circuit court

indicated that it was considering both the dispositional report and the CASA report. The State did

                                                10
not provide testimony or further evidence. Mother testified on her own behalf that she was

concerned about the placement of her children with Donna, her mother, and Brittany, the foster

mother. Mother believed that it was in the best interest of her children to return home, and she

would do whatever was necessary to have her children returned.

¶ 36   The circuit court found that it was in the best interest for each of the five children for DCFS

to have guardianship and custody and the children were made wards of the court. The circuit court

found that it was clear that the children had suffered trauma through their words and behavior and

found that both Mother and Father were unfit. Additionally, the circuit court stated that neither

parent was willing to attend counseling or communicate with the caseworker. Mother and Father

were admonished to cooperate with DCFS, comply with their service plans, correct the conditions

that required the children to be in care, or they risked having their parental rights terminated. The

formal written orders were entered on April 25, 2023. This appeal followed.

¶ 37                                    II. ANALYSIS

¶ 38   On appeal, Mother argues that the circuit court failed to make explicit and sufficient oral

findings during the adjudication of neglect. Mother additionally argues that the circuit court’s

determination of neglect and the dispositional determinations were against the manifest weight of

evidence.

¶ 39   The Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)) provides a two-step

process to decide whether a minor should become a ward of the court. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875,

¶ 18. The first step is the adjudicatory hearing on the petition of wardship. In re A.P., 2012 IL

113875, ¶ 19. “At the adjudicatory hearing, the court shall first consider only the question whether

the minor is abused, neglected or dependent.” 705 ILCS 405/2-18(1) (West 2022).

                                                 11
¶ 40   This case involves allegations that the children were neglected in that their environment

was injurious to their welfare. The term “injurious environment” is recognized as an amorphous

concept that cannot be defined but has been interpreted to include “the breach of a parent’s duty

to ensure a ‘safe and nurturing shelter’ for his or her children.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d 441, 463 (2004). Similarly, “neglect” has a fluid meaning, and “neglect”

generally is defined as “the failure to exercise the care that circumstances justly demand.” (Internal

quotation marks omitted.) In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d at 463.

¶ 41   The State must prove neglect, dependence, or abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.

In re N.B., 191 Ill. 2d 338, 343 (2000). “Leaving a child in a sexually and physically abusive

environment constitutes neglect in the environment.” In re Walter B., 227 Ill. App. 3d 746, 756

(1992). The neglect of one minor is admissible as evidence of neglect to other minors under the

respondent’s care. In re Kenneth D., 364 Ill. App. 3d 797, 801 (2006). There is no need to wait for

a minor to be harmed before deciding that a child’s environment is injurious. In re Jordyn L., 2016

IL App (1st) 150956, ¶ 35.

¶ 42   Under section 2-21(1) of the Juvenile Court Act, “[t]he court’s determination of whether

the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent shall be stated in writing with the factual basis

supporting that determination.” 705 ILCS 405/2-21(1) (West 2022). However, “where an oral

pronouncement is explicit and sufficient to advise the parties of the court’s reasoning, the statutory

requirement of a written explanation will be satisfied.” In re Leona W., 228 Ill. 2d 439, 459 (2008).

A circuit court order must be interpreted from the entire context in which it was entered and

construed in a reasonable manner to give effect to the apparent intention of the circuit court. In re

Jennice L., 2021 IL App (1st) 200407, ¶ 18. A circuit court’s finding of abuse or neglect will only

                                                 12
be reversed if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Davon H., 2015 IL App (1st)

150926, ¶ 47.

¶ 43   If the circuit court determines that a minor has been abused, neglected or dependent, then

the circuit court proceeds to the second step, the dispositional hearing. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875,

¶ 21. During the dispositional hearing, the circuit court determines whether it is consistent with

the health, safety and best interests of the minors and the public for the minors to be made wards

of the court. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 21. The circuit court additionally considers the

permanency goal set for the minor at the dispositional hearing. 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2022).

¶ 44   A circuit court’s determination of wardship will be reversed if the factual findings are

against the manifest weight of the evidence or if the court abused its discretion by selecting an

inappropriate dispositional order. In re Davon H., 2015 IL App (1st) 150926, ¶ 58. “This standard

of review recognizes that the trial court is in a much better position than is this court to observe

the witnesses, assess credibility, and weigh the evidence.” In re T.B., 215 Ill. App. 3d 1059, 1062

(1991). This court, therefore, does not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the

witnesses. In re M.A., 325 Ill. App. 3d 387, 391 (2001).

¶ 45   The petitions contained allegations that the children were neglected based on being in an

environment injurious to their welfare under section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS

405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2022)). The specific paragraphs outlining the allegations in each petition were

not identical. K.G.’s petition contained allegations in paragraph three that Father hurts him and

Father sexually abused K.G. and his siblings. Similarly, H.G.1.’s petition contained an allegation

that she was sexually abused by Father in paragraph three of her petition. Each of the five petitions

contained allegations that the children were neglected in that his/her environment is injurious based

on physical and sexual abuse to their siblings. Each of the four older children’s petitions

                                                 13
additionally contained an allegation regarding education under section 2-3(1)(a) of the Juvenile

Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a) (West 2022)), which the State did not prove by a

preponderance of the evidence.

¶ 46   While written factual bases were omitted from the formal adjudicatory orders, the circuit

court stated its reasoning for its determination during the adjudicatory hearing. Mother argues that

the circuit court’s oral findings were not explicit and were insufficient. The circuit court referenced

paragraphs three and four of “the petition” without identifying the case number of the petition.

Even though the allegations and paragraph numbers in each of the five petitions were not identical,

the circuit court clearly identified the children’s names when stating its reasoning. The circuit court

found that “[K.G.] unequivocally answered questions about his sister’s butt bleeding and his dad

hurting his pee pee.” The circuit court considered K.G.’s interview at the Amy Center, statements

K.G. made to Bobbie Ball, as well as statements Mother made to Bobbie. The circuit court found

K.G. to be credible and that K.G. was neglected.

¶ 47   In contrast, because H.G.1. denied the allegations during her interview, the circuit court

found that the State failed to meet its burden of proof regarding allegations of abuse to H.G.1.

Nevertheless, H.G.1.’s petition was granted because it contained an allegation that she was

neglected for being in an injurious environment based on the circuit court’s finding that K.G. was

neglected. The petitions for H.G.2., L.G., and O.G. were also granted based on the harm to their

sibling, K.G. When considering the entire context of the circuit court’s findings without relying

on the reference to a paragraph number, the circuit court’s statements were explicit and sufficient

to advise the parties of the court’s reasoning.

                                                  14
¶ 48   Pursuant to our authority under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994),

we hereby amend the circuit court’s adjudicatory orders to reflect the circuit court’s oral findings.

In re K.G., No. 22-JA-22 (Cir. Ct. Marion County), is amended as follows:

       g. The State has proved allegations in paragraph three of its petition by a preponderance of
       the evidence. K.G. is neglected in that his environment is injurious to his welfare where his
       father physically and sexually abused K.G. Specifically, K.G.’s testimony of “his dad
       hurting his pee pee” was found credible.

In re H.G., No. 22-JA-23 (Cir. Ct. Marion County), In re L.G., No. 22-JA-24 (Cir. Ct. Marion

County), and In re H.G., No. 22-JA-25 (Cir. Ct. Marion County), are amended as follows:

       g. The State has proved allegations in paragraph four of its petition by a preponderance of
       the evidence. Specifically, K.G.’s testimony of “his dad hurting his pee pee” was found
       credible and K.G. was found neglected. H.G.1., L.G., H.G.2., and O.G. are found to be
       neglected where the minors’ brother was physically and sexually abused by their father,
       causing their environment to be unsafe.

In re O.G., No. 22-JA-51 (Cir. Ct. Marion County), is amended as follows:

       g. The State has proved allegations in paragraph three of its petition by a preponderance of
       the evidence. The minor is found to be neglected in that said minor’s brother was physically
       and sexually abused by his father causing O.G.’s environment to be unsafe. Specifically,
       K.G.’s testimony of “his dad hurting his pee pee” was found credible and K.G. was found
       neglected. The minor’s siblings are wards of the court and the conditions that led to their
       removal have not been corrected.

¶ 49   As explained above, on review, this court will not reweigh the evidence or reassess the

credibility of the witnesses. The circuit court was in the best position to make a credibility

assessment of witness testimony and weigh the evidence. We have thoroughly reviewed the record

on appeal and conclude that the circuit court’s adjudicatory and dispositional determinations were

not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 50                                 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 51   For the foregoing reasons, the adjudicatory and dispositional determinations of the circuit

court of Marion County, as to each of the five children, are affirmed as modified.

                                                 15
¶ 52   Affirmed as modified.

                               16