Court Opinion

ID: 9929527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 21:04:29.538932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:27:13.506635
License: Public Domain

NOTICE                   2024 IL App (5th) 230660-U
                                                                                          NOTICE
 Decision filed 02/02/24. The
                                                                               This order was filed under
 text of this decision may be               NO. 5-23-0660
                                                                               Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
 changed or corrected prior to
                                                                               not precedent except in the
 the filing of a Petition for
                                               IN THE                          limited circumstances allowed
 Rehearing or the disposition of
                                                                               under Rule 23(e)(1).
 the same.
                                   APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                               FIFTH DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

CHRISTINA HAYWOOD,                        )     Appeal from the
                                          )     Circuit Court of
      Petitioner-Appellant,               )     Champaign County.
                                          )
v.                                        )     No. 13-F-556
                                          )
WALTER JOHNSON,                           )     Honorable
                                          )     Ramona Sullivan,
      Respondent-Appellee.                )     Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

         JUSTICE WELCH delivered the judgment of the court.
         Justices Cates and Moore concurred in the judgment.

                                            ORDER

¶1       Held: The trial court’s allocation of parental decision-making authority and
               parenting time was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the
               record revealed that the court considered the relevant best-interest factors and
               the evidence presented on those factors.

¶2       The petitioner, Christina Haywood, appeals from the trial court’s allocation of sole parental

decision-making responsibilities for education and healthcare and the majority of parenting time

of the parties’ minor child, Myanna J., to the respondent, Walter Johnson. In her pro se appellate

brief, Christina contends that the trial court failed to consider, when determining Myanna’s best

interests, Myanna’s wishes, Christina’s dedication to Myanna’s overall development as evidenced

                                                  1
by her active participation in Myanna’s schooling, and her concerns about Myanna’s cleanliness

and wellbeing while in Walter’s care. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 1

¶3                                       I. BACKGROUND

¶4      The parties had one child, Myanna, born on September 13, 2013; the parties never married.

Christina was Myanna’s primary caregiver until 2019, when Myanna was removed from her care

and placed in foster care. In January 2022, Myanna was placed in Walter’s home. On July 21,

2022, Walter was awarded custody of Myanna in the juvenile court case (Cook County case No.

19-JA-834). On August 26, 2022, Christina filed a pro se petition for allocation of parental

responsibilities, in which she requested that significant decision-making authority and parenting

time be allocated equally between the parties. In the petition, she indicated that Myanna was

currently living with Walter and had resided there since January 14, 2022; and that the July 21,

2022, order in the juvenile court case allocated parental decision-making authority to him but did

not allocate parenting time between the parties. After that, Walter refused to communicate with

Christina about Myanna, and Christina had not seen Myanna since July 16, 2022.

¶5      On December 19, 2022, Walter pro se filed a proposed parenting plan, which attached a

letter from him in which he expressed his concerns about Christina having unsupervised overnight

visits with Myanna as, over the past 3½ years, Christina had not had more than two hours of

supervised visits with Myanna. He indicated that, since the juvenile case closed, Myanna was

        1
          We note that the respondent has failed to file an appellee’s brief. There are three distinct,
discretionary options a reviewing court may exercise in the absence of an appellee’s brief: (1) it may serve
as an advocate for the appellee and decide the case when the court determines justice so requires, (2) it may
decide the merits of the case if the record is simple and the issues can be easily decided without the aid of
the appellee’s brief, or (3) it may reverse the trial court when the appellant’s brief demonstrates prima facie
reversible error that is supported by the record. Thomas v. Koe, 395 Ill. App. 3d 570, 577 (2009). In this
case, the record is simple, and the claimed errors are such that we can easily decide them without the aid of
the appellee’s brief.

                                                      2
emotional and confused, and she was no longer in services to help her process her feelings. Myanna

was acting out, which led to chaos at home and school, and she was suspended five times at school

since August. Myanna wanted to live with Christina, and she believed that if she misbehaved,

Walter would eventually send her to live with Christina.

¶6     Walter permitted Christina to have a visit with Myanna after the juvenile case closed, but,

during that time, she questioned Myanna about his home, his parenting, and his other children.

Christina then made false allegations to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services

(DCFS) and false police reports about him, stalked his home, unexpectedly showed up at Myanna’s

school, relentlessly called him, and verbally attacked him. He noted that Christina’s behavior was

witnessed by Myanna and his other children.

¶7     Walter requested that Christina only have supervised visits until it was deemed safe by a

counselor for Myanna to stay overnight in Christina’s home. He also requested that Christina and

Myanna engage in counseling to determine whether Christina could provide a safe environment

for Myanna and address the reasons why Myanna was initially placed into care. On February 6,

2023, the trial court entered a temporary order regarding parenting time, in which it allocated the

majority of parenting time to Walter but allocated in-person parenting time to Christina on

alternating Sundays from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. and electronic parenting time on Mondays at 5 p.m.

On April 20, 2023, the court entered an order appointing a guardian ad litem (GAL) for Myanna.

¶8     On June 26, 2023, the GAL filed a report after interviewing Christina, Walter, Desirii

Johnson (Walter’s wife), Christina’s previous daycare provider, Christina’s counselor, and

Myanna. The report indicated that Myanna was removed from Christina’s residence in July 2019

because Christina left her alone over night at home while at work. Myanna was then in foster care

for more than two years. While in care, Myanna experienced several disrupted placements

                                                3
including one where she experienced trauma. In January 2022, she transitioned from her foster

care home to Walter’s home.

¶9     Because there were concerns about Myanna’s successful integration into Walter’s home,

family counseling was initiated to support and prepare Walter, Desirii, and their children. In the

family counselor’s July 15, 2022, report, the counselor noted that Walter made sure that Myanna

was available for counseling sessions, was engaged in skill instruction, and practiced those skills

in between sessions. The counselor also noted that Walter and Desirii were open to discussions

about future visitation plans and ways to support a continued relationship between Myanna and

Christina. The counselor opined that Walter and Desirii were fully equipped to support and

reinforce Myanna’s continued social and emotional development and full integration into their

blended household. She indicated that they were knowledgeable about the possible warning signs

of declining mental health and ways to reenlist treatment for Myanna should the need arise.

¶ 10   The counselor noted that, although Myanna questioned why she could not return to

Chrstina’s home, Myanna had a strong bond with Walter. Myanna’s violent play themes that were

previously observed had dissipated, her play and interaction skills had been more in line with age

level expectations, and her ability to discuss her feelings on difficult situations had improved.

However, Myanna had been suspended 12 times from school for physical confrontations with

students, throwing food at students, pulling the fire alarm, hitting a teacher, disruptive behavior,

and theft of her teacher’s cell phone. The counselor indicated that Myanna required consistency,

structure, explicit support of her relationship with Christina, and a preplanned visitation

arrangement with Christina.

¶ 11   The GAL report then indicated that Christina lived in a two-bedroom trailer in Blue Island,

Illinois, and she was employed at Ingalls Hospital. She owned a four-bedroom home in Matteson,

                                                 4
Illinois, and she would move there when her other children were returned to her care; she had three

other children, ages 16, 7, and 2. Christina acknowledged that she left her children home alone

several times while she was at work. However, she explained that she made a meal schedule for

each of them, had a care plan inside the home, and a neighbor checked on them; her oldest child

was 12 at the time. The children were removed from her care after someone observed them walking

alone on a main street. She indicated that she had accepted responsibility for this incident and had

been in counseling since 2019. She also acknowledged that, in 2016, there were allegations of

physical abuse toward her oldest child, which resulted in a founded report from DCFS.

¶ 12   Christina also indicated that Myanna was not initially placed with Walter because he had

only sporadically seen Myanna prior to the juvenile case. She expressed concern that Myanna was

not being properly cared for in Walter’s home, claiming that Myanna’s clothing was too small and

damaged, and there were issues with Myanna’s personal hygiene. Christina noted that, when

Myanna was at school, she acted out and called her at every opportunity. Myanna’s grades were

good when DCFS was involved, but her grades dropped after the juvenile case was closed.

Christina reported a recent incident where Myanna ran away from home and called her. Christina

indicated that Myanna wanted to live with her, and she had a care plan for Myanna when at work.

¶ 13   Walter indicated that he was married to Desirii, they resided in a two-bedroom apartment

in Champaign, and they had three children together. They planned to move into a four-bedroom

home where all of the children would have their own room. He also had two other children, and

he had parenting time with those children. Myanna was nine years old and had recently completed

third grade. She struggled with reading and was in the literacy enrichment program to assist with

that. She had 12 two-day suspensions during the last school year, and her schoolwork had been

impacted by her numerous suspensions. Walter noted that, almost every time following a Sunday

                                                 5
visit with Christina, Myanna would get suspended from school. Walter acknowledged that Myanna

liked seeing Christina and wanted to spend more time with her. He and Christina’s communication

was negative and not healthy. He believed that, once he obtained custody of Myanna, Christina

viewed him as her enemy. During one of Christina’s visits, Christina took Myanna to the

emergency room because of bruises on her leg, and Myanna told the doctor that Walter had hit

her. The doctor called DCFS, but the DCFS investigation was unfounded. Christina also called

DCFS to report that there was no food in Walter’s house, but that investigation was also unfounded.

¶ 14   Walter indicated that his relationship with Myanna had improved, but there was still room

for improvement. He noted that he was the bad guy in Myanna’s eyes because he would not always

let her get her way. Myanna recently started attending counseling, and Walter noted that her

behavior had previously improved with counseling, so he believed that counseling would again

help her.

¶ 15   Desirii had a master’s degree in social work and was employed at Neighborhood

Connection Center in Urbana. Desirii noted that Myanna initially did well when placed in their

house; Myanna was in counseling and had regular visits with Christina. However, Myanna started

having issues when the juvenile case was closed because all services and regular parenting time

with Christina stopped. Myanna recently started counseling again, and Desirii believed that would

help Myanna. Myanna was also scheduled for a mental health assessment and mental health

services. Desirii indicated that Myanna had difficulty expressing her emotions, she became very

upset when she did not get her way, and she did well with routines and schedules. Desirii noted

that parenting time with Christina was difficult because Christina would do anything to get

Myanna back; Desirii believed that Christina called DCFS to sabotage Myanna’s placement with

                                                6
Walter. Desirii indicated that most of Myanna’s issues at school were behavioral and that Myanna

had issues with reading but was progressing.

¶ 16   Treshawnda Junius, Christina’s former daycare provider, indicated that she had known

Christina for several years. Junius noted that Christina had a special relationship with Myanna,

Myanna adored Christina and missed the interaction with her, Myanna always felt comfortable

going to Christina, and Myanna and Christina would do “girl things” together.

¶ 17   Brenda Hill, Christina’s counselor, indicated that Christina was progressing in counseling,

and, at the next permanency hearing, she was going to recommend that Christina’s other children

be returned to Christina’s home.

¶ 18   During Myanna’s interview, Myanna was initially shy and wanted Walter to come with

her. She appeared bonded with him. She stated that she liked being at Walter’s home but indicated

that she wanted to spend more time with Christina and her siblings.

¶ 19   After the interviews and analyzing the relevant best-interest factors, the GAL

recommended that Walter be allocated significant decision-making authority and the majority of

the parenting time. In making the recommendation on significant decision-making authority, the

GAL noted that Walter had been the sole decision maker since he obtained custody of Myanna in

January 2022, he demonstrated the ability to act in her best interests, he sought intervention when

necessary, and there should be no joint decision-making as the parties had difficulty

communicating. The GAL indicated that Christina seemed to believe everything that Myanna told

her and called DCFS on Walter to sabotage Myanna’s placement with him. She took Myanna to

the emergency room when she observed bruising on Myanna’s leg rather than contact Walter to

discuss the nature of the bruising.

                                                7
¶ 20      In recommending that Walter be allocated the majority of parenting time, the GAL found

that Walter provided the stability and structure that Myanna needed, and he had stable employment

and housing. The GAL noted that the family moving to a four-bedroom home would give everyone

more space and potentially help Myanna’s behavior. Although Myanna had significant behavioral

issues at school, Walter addressed those issues through counseling and mental health services. He

also sought help with her reading skills by enrolling her in a literacy program. The GAL noted that

Myanna experienced the loss of Christina, who had been her primary caretaker, at a young age and

was also separated from her young siblings, whom she had lived with her entire life. Thus, the

GAL opined that increasing Christina’s parenting time would help with Myanna’s behavioral

issues.

¶ 21      On August 9, 2023, the trial court held a hearing, at which both parties appeared pro se,

and the following evidence was presented. Brenda testified that, since December 2022, Christina

was regularly engaged in counseling and attended a one-hour session every week. Brenda noted

that, in that time, Christina was doing a wonderful job, had considerably improved, and had shown

that her approach to parenting was wonderful. Brenda indicated that Christina demonstrated that

she was capable of proper parenting by showing that she could properly discipline; that she was

able to care, love, and nurture her children; and that she was capable of providing a stable home.

Christina’s testing results were fine, and Brenda had no concerns about Christina’s ability to

parent. Brenda noted that they discussed the reasons why Christina’s children were placed into

care, and Brenda was satisfied that Christina understood that the decisions she made that day were

wrong and that she would not make that same decision again. Brenda also indicated that Christina

completed parenting classes, and Brenda was satisfied that Christina was able to meet the

                                                  8
requirements for parenting all of her children. Brenda noted that if Myanna was returned to

Christina, Myanna would be included in the counseling sessions.

¶ 22   Beverly Hill testified that she provided childcare services for Myanna from 2018 until 2019

or 2020 through Illinois Action for Children. During that time, Beverly observed that Myanna was

well cared for, Christina loved and nurtured her, Myanna was always properly dressed, and

Christina attended Myanna’s school events. Beverly described Myanna as really smart and

indicated that Myanna was on the honor roll, and she did not have any bad behaviors. Beverly

noted that if Myanna was returned to Christina, she would provide childcare services for Myanna.

Although Christina gave Beverly’s contact information to the GAL, the GAL never contacted

Beverly.

¶ 23   Tierra Haywood, Christina’s sister, testified that she had custody of Myanna for

approximately one year after Myanna was placed in care. During that time, Christina had visits

with Myanna, the visits went well, Myanna was always happy to see Christina, and Myanna was

comfortable around Christina. Tierra did not have any concerns about Christina being around

Myanna, and she was always comfortable giving Christina more time with Myanna. Christina

bought them extra food and provided Myanna with clothing and items for school. Walter never

visited Myanna during that time or reached out to provide financial support. There were no

academic concerns with Myanna during that time. Tierra indicated that if Myanna was returned to

Christina, she would have a great support system.

¶ 24   Junius testified that she had known Christina for several years, and she had previously

provided childcare services for Myanna. Junius noted that she cared for Myanna when Myanna

was a baby until Myanna was approximately three years old. During that time, Myanna was always

cared for and well maintained, she was always healthy, and she was happy. Junius described the

                                                9
relationship between Myanna and Christina as really healthy. Junius observed Christina assisting

Myanna with her homework, talking and playing with her, and doing her hair and nails. Although

Walter provided childcare for Myanna during this time and also provided financial support, Walter

was not consistently providing hands-on care for her. Junius never had contact with Walter.

¶ 25   Junius also observed video visits between Myanna and Christina while Myanna was at

Walter’s home. During one visit, Myanna cried almost the entire time and was very unhappy

because Walter was mocking her and would not leave the room so she could talk to Christina.

Junius noted that Myanna was very uncomfortable, was not free with her words, and was not acting

like herself. Junius observed a difference in Myanna’s behavior when she was permitted to talk to

Christina without Walter in the room; Junius noted that Myanna was very free, she showed

Christina her toys, and she talked with Christina about what was going on and what she wanted to

do once she was returned to Christina. Myanna expressed that, although she wanted to maintain a

relationship with Walter, she did not want to live with him and was hopeful that she would return

to Christina’s home. During those visits, Junius noticed that Myanna’s hair was usually not

combed, and her clothing was either too small or stained. There were some occasions where

Myanna was not wearing deodorant and one occasion where she was not wearing underwear.

¶ 26   Junius observed that Myanna was very opinionated, outspoken, and bright. Christina and

Myanna had a very strong bond and a good relationship, Myanna was comfortable having difficult

conversations with Christina, and Myanna felt free with Christina. Junius believed that if Myanna

was returned to Christina, Myanna would have a better and more stable support system than she

had before. Junius noted that Christina diligently worked to correct her past mistakes with her

children, and she had shown great strength in doing what was required of her and getting the help

she needed. Junius believed that Christina was willing and able to take on the responsibility of

                                               10
having the children back in her care full-time. Junius would be available if Christina needed

childcare for Myanna. Junius opined that Myanna was desperately looking for a sense of normalcy,

and Myanna wanted to be where she felt the most comfortable, which was with Christina. Junius

noted that, although the love Myanna had for Walter was very strong, she would thrive if she was

returned to Christina. Junius indicated that she had no concerns about Myanna being in her home

with her children because Myanna had always been very good and respectful.

¶ 27   Christina testified that Myanna was currently nine years old. After Walter was granted

custody of Myanna, Christina contacted him several times to schedule visits, but she did not

receive any visits until the trial court entered an order establishing a parenting time schedule. Since

then, she had been consistent with visits and had even requested additional visits, which Walter

denied. During the February 26, 2023, visit, Christina observed bruising on Myanna’s leg.

Christina asked Myanna about the bruising, and Myanna said that Walter whipped her with a belt.

Christina then took Myanna to the hospital where the nurse did a full body scan and discovered

multiple bruises on Myanna’s body. The hospital took images of the bruising and contacted DCFS

because Myanna had told the nurse that Walter whipped her with a belt.

¶ 28   Christina indicated that she had previously contacted Walter about Myanna’s hygiene

issues and Myanna not wearing underwear. Walter responded that he did not dress Myanna, and

Myanna knew better. She also reached out to him when she discovered that Myanna was not doing

well in school, but Walter responded that he did not need to communicate with her and that he

would see her in court. Christina indicated that she was unable to speak with Myanna’s school

because Walter’s wife had obtained an order of protection against her, but Walter never told the

school that the order was ultimately dismissed. Christina indicated that she completed all DCFS

recommended services, including parenting classes; she agreed to continue individual and family

                                                  11
therapy; and she recently completed a refresher course to learn how to communicate with Walter

more effectively.

¶ 29   Walter testified that Myanna lived with him, and he believed that it was in her best interests

for her to continue residing with him and for Christina to have parenting time with her. Myanna

was entering fourth grade, and she was suspended 13 times the previous year. However, Myanna

was on a waiting list for counseling. He explained that he stopped scheduling parenting time

between Christina and Myanna because Christina came to his house and was beating on his door

and window. Desirii subsequently obtained an order of protection against Christina. He also

explained that he canceled her August 13, 2022, visit because she was calling him and cussing him

out, and he did not want to be around that behavior.

¶ 30   After hearing the testimony, the trial court entered a written judgment of allocation of

parental responsibilities, allocating sole decision-making authority for education and healthcare to

Walter, joint decision-making authority for religion and extracurricular activities to the parties,

and the majority of the parenting time to Walter. In analyzing the relevant best-interest factors for

the decision-making authority allocation, the court made the following findings. Myanna’s wishes

were unknown. Although she had difficulty adjusting to Walter’s home and had struggled in

school, she experienced several foster placements since her removal from Christina’s house and,

since Walter was granted custody in January 2022, has had a safe and stable home environment.

She had not been in Christina’s care for four years. When the juvenile case closed, and Walter was

awarded custody of Myanna without any parenting time provisions for Christina, he was hesitant

to include Christina in decision making. He testified that Christina “cussed at him” and appeared

at his home “beating on the door and windows.” His wife obtained an emergency stalking no

                                                 12
contact order against Christina. Thus, the court found that the parties had not demonstrated an

ability to share decision making.

¶ 31   The trial court noted that Christina was responsible for the decision making from Myanna’s

birth until her removal, but Walter had been responsible for the past 19 months. Myanna needed

two parents who were actively involved in her life and were interested in her welfare, and both

parents needed to be informed about and participate in significant decision making. Both parties

lived in Illinois, but they did not live in the same community; Walter lived in Champaign while

Christina lived in Blue Island. As soon as Christina was permitted parenting time with Myanna,

she took Myanna to the emergency room for bruising, and DCFS was subsequently called. The

trial court found that this effort to interfere with Myanna’s placement with Walter, particularly in

light of the lengthy and traumatic experience that Myanna had already endured in foster care,

demonstrated Christina’s unwillingness or inability to support Myanna’s relationship with Walter.

The court noted that, once a court order was in effect, Walter fully cooperated with providing

parenting time for Christina. The court found that his reluctance to voluntarily agree to parenting

time without a court order was understandable under the circumstances.

¶ 32   Based on the above, the court found that it was in Myanna’s best interests for Walter to be

allocated sole decision-making authority for education and healthcare. The court noted that the

distance and conflict between the parties prevented joint decision making at this time, and Walter

was better able to meet Myanna’s needs. The court then allocated joint decision-making authority

for religion and extracurricular activities to the parties, finding that the parties had an ability to

communicate and work together on those issues.

¶ 33   In analyzing the relevant best-interest factors for the parenting time allocation, the trial

court made the following findings. Each parent wanted the majority of parenting time and wanted

                                                 13
the other party to have unsupervised periods of parenting time. According to the testimony,

Myanna wished to spend more time with Christina. It had been 4 years since Myanna was in

Christina’s physical custody, and Walter had performed the caretaking functions for the past 19

months. Prior to the juvenile case, the course of conduct demonstrated that Christina was Myanna’s

primary caretaker. Myanna had bonds with other siblings in both homes. Neither party sought a

restriction on parenting time.

¶ 34   The trial court found that Walter placed Myanna’s needs first, he remained committed to

providing a safe and stable home for her, he supported her education, and he met her needs.

Christina loved Myanna very much and had made great progress in recognizing the issues that

caused Myanna’s removal from her home and working to correct those issues. Christina

thoughtfully investigated and established care plans for her children so that they would have

appropriate supervision. She also remained committed to offering a safe and stable home for

Myanna. The court noted that both parents clearly loved Myanna, and Myanna was very fortunate

to have a strong bond and loving relationship with each of them. Thus, the court found that it was

important for Myanna to enjoy substantial time with each parent. Based on the above, the court

found that it was in Myanna’s best interests for both parties to have substantial parenting time, but

that Walter be allocated the majority of the parenting time and be designated the custodial and

residential parent for school and government purposes. The court then established a parenting time

schedule for Christina. Christina appeals.

¶ 35                                    II. ANALYSIS

¶ 36   Christina contends that the trial court’s allocations of decision-making authority and

parenting time were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, she contends that

the trial court failed to consider Myanna’s wishes, her dedication to Myanna’s overall development

                                                 14
as evidenced by her active participation in Myanna’s schooling, and her concerns about Myanna’s

cleanliness and wellbeing while in Walter’s care.

¶ 37   Under section 602.5(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act), the

trial court must allocate parental decision-making responsibilities according to the child’s best

interests. 750 ILCS 5/602.5(a) (West 2022). In determining the child’s best interests for allocation

of decision-making responsibilities, the court must consider all relevant factors, including: (1) the

child’s wishes; (2) the child’s adjustment to his or her home, school, and community; (3) the

mental and physical health of all individuals involved; (4) the ability of the parents to cooperate to

make decisions, or the level of conflict between the parties that may affect their ability to share

decision-making; (5) the level of each parent’s participation in past significant decision-making

with respect to the child; (6) any prior agreement or course of conduct between the parents relating

to decision-making with respect to the child; (7) the parents’ wishes; (8) the child’s needs; (9) the

distance between the parents’ residences, the cost and difficulty of transporting the child, each

parent’s and the child’s daily schedules, and the ability of the parents to cooperate in the

arrangement; (10) whether a restriction on decision-making is appropriate; (11) the willingness

and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between

the other parent and the child; (12) the physical violence or threat of physical violence by the

child’s parent directed against the child; (13) the occurrence of abuse against the child or other

member of the child’s household; (14) whether one of the parents is a sex offender; and (15) any

other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant. Id. § 602.5(c).

¶ 38   Section 602.7(a) of the Act also instructs that the trial court must allocate parenting time

according to the child’s best interests. Id. § 602.7(a). In arriving at that decision, the court must

consider all relevant factors, including: (1) the wishes of each parent seeking parenting time;

                                                  15
(2) the child’s wishes; (3) the amount of time each parent spent performing caretaking functions

with respect to the child in the 24 months preceding the filing of any petition for allocation of

parental responsibilities or, if the child is under two years of age, since the child’s birth; (4) any

prior agreement or course of conduct between the parents relating to caretaking functions with

respect to the child; (5) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents and

siblings and with any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interests; (6) the

child’s adjustment to his or her home, school, and community; (7) the mental and physical health

of all individuals involved; (8) the child’s needs; (9) the distance between the parents’ residences,

the cost and difficulty of transporting the child, each parent’s and the child’s daily schedules, and

the ability of the parents to cooperate in the arrangement; (10) whether a restriction on parenting

time is appropriate; (11) the physical violence or threat of physical violence by the child’s parent

directed against the child or other member of the child’s household; (12) the willingness and ability

of each parent to place the needs of the child ahead of his or her own needs; (13) the willingness

and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between

the other parent and the child; (14) the occurrence of abuse against the child or other member of

the child’s household; (15) whether one of the parents is a convicted sex offender or lives with a

convicted sex offender; (16) the terms of a parent’s military family-care plan that a parent must

complete before deployment if a parent is a member of the United States Armed Forces who is

being deployed; and (17) any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant. Id.

§ 602.7(b).

¶ 39   The trial court’s best-interest determinations are entitled to great deference because the

court is in the superior position to observe the proceedings and assess the credibility of the

witnesses. In re Marriage of Whitehead, 2018 IL App (5th) 170380, ¶ 21. A trial court’s

                                                  16
determination regarding a child’s best interests will not be reversed on appeal unless the decision

is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and it appears that a manifest injustice has occurred.

In re P.D., 2017 IL App (2d) 170355, ¶ 18. A decision is against the manifest weight of the

evidence when the opposite result is clearly evident from the record. In re Marriage of Betsy M.,

2015 IL App (1st) 151358, ¶ 61.

¶ 40   As a reviewing court, we may not reweigh the evidence, assess witness credibility, or set

aside the trial court’s decision simply because a different conclusion could have been drawn from

the evidence. See Jameson v. Williams, 2020 IL App (3d) 200048, ¶ 51 (“It is well settled that a

reviewing court’s function is not to reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility and set aside

the circuit court’s decision simply because a different conclusion may have been drawn from the

evidence.”). Christina’s arguments are essentially asking this court to reweigh the evidence, which

we will not do. The record reveals that, in reaching its decisions on parental decision-making

authority and parenting time, the trial court thoughtfully considered and evaluated the relevant

statutory best-interest factors and the evidence presented on the various factors, including the

evidence presented about Christina’s concerns about Myanna’s wellbeing and cleanliness while in

Walter’s care, the close relationship and strong bond between Christina and Myanna, Myanna

expressing to Christina that she wanted to return to Christina’s home, and Christina’s dedication

to Myanna. Because we find that the trial court’s findings were supported by the record and were

not against the manifest weight of the evidence, we affirm the court’s rulings on decision-making

authority and parenting time.

¶ 41                                  III. CONCLUSION

¶ 42   For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Champaign County is hereby

affirmed.

                                                 17
¶ 43   Affirmed.

                   18