Court Opinion

ID: 9382088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 20:03:26.350777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:36.970184
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 220817-U
                                            No. 1-22-0817
                                      Order filed March 24, 2023
                                                                                        Sixth Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
                                                IN THE
                                  APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                          FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
In re V.S., Minor,                                              )   Appeal from the
                                                                )   Circuit Court of
(People of the State of Illinois,                               )   Cook County.
                                                                )
           Petitioner-Appellee,                                 )   No. 20 JA 01107
                                                                )
     v.                                                         )   Honorable
                                                                )   Jennifer Payne,
D.H.E.,                                                         )   Judge, Presiding.
                                                                )
           Respondent-Appellant.)                               )

           JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court.
           Justices C.A. Walker and Tailor concurred in the judgment.

                                              ORDER

¶1        Held: We affirm the circuit court’s adjudication of wardship where respondent’s appeal
                of the neglect finding is moot because he failed to also challenge the dependency
                finding. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that respondent was unable to care
                for the child at the time of the dispositional hearing, and order awarding
                guardianship to DCFS.
No. 1-22-0817

¶2     Respondent-father D.H.E appeals from an adjudication finding of neglect as to V.S., minor,

and a dispositional order that adjudicated V.S. a ward of the court. 1 On appeal, respondent

contends that: (1) the adjudicatory finding of neglect was improper and deprived him of due

process where the petition made no allegations against respondent and thus denied him the

opportunity to defend against the petition; (2) the adjudicatory finding of neglect was against the

manifest weight of the evidence; and (3) the disposition order should be reversed where the circuit

court failed to provide a factual basis for its disposition. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶3                                            BACKGROUND

¶4     The record reveals that on November 29, 2021, the State filed a petition for adjudication

of wardship regarding V.S., minor. V.S. minor was born on November 22, 2021. The petition

included the names and addresses of the minor’s parents, S.S. (mother) and D.H.E. (respondent).

The petition alleged that V.S. was taken into custody on November 23, 2021, at 10 a.m. with a

temporary custody hearing scheduled for November 29, 2021. The petition further alleged that

V.S. was neglected pursuant to section 405/2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act (Act) (705 ILCS

405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)) because he was a minor under 18 years of age whose environment was

injurious to his welfare. As factual support, the State alleged that the mother had two prior

indicated reports for inadequate supervision and substantial risk of physical injury/environment

injurious to his health/welfare by neglect. Mother had two other minors who were in DCFS

temporary custody with findings entered; mother was non-compliant with offered and

recommended reunification services; mother had untreated mental health issues; mother was

psychiatrically hospitalized after the birth of V.S.; and paternity had not been established.

       1
           V.S.’s mother is not a party to this appeal.

                                                      -2-
No. 1-22-0817

¶5     Additionally, the petition alleged that V.S. was abused in that his parent or immediate

family member created a substantial risk of physical injury to the minor by other than accidental

means which would be likely to cause death, disfigurement, impairment of emotional health, or

loss of impairment of any bodily function under section 405/2-3(2)(ii) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-

3(2)(ii) (West 2020). As factual support for this allegation, the petition restated the prior factual

allegations. The petition sought a declaration that V.S. be adjudged a ward of the court.

¶6     Also on November 29, 2021, the State filed a motion for temporary custody of V.S. The

pleadings included an affidavit of Daneen Sydnor, dated November 24, 2021, that documented

DCFS efforts and averred that she was the caseworker assigned to V.S.’s case and that the case

came to DCFS’s attention due to the substantial risk of physical injury/environment injurious to

the child’s health and safety by neglect. She further averred that mother had DCFS history,

including having two of her children in DCFS custody; mother had not completed any services to

reunify her children and had not seen the children since they were removed from her care; mother

had a history of untreated mental health and had delusions and manic outbreaks.

¶7                              A. Temporary Custody Hearing

¶8     A shelter care hearing was held on November 29, 2021, and respondent was present.

Mother was not present. The circuit court appointed an attorney for respondent and the public

guardian’s office was appointed as guardian ad litem (GAL) for V.S.

¶9     Sydnor testified that mother was in the psychiatric unit at Jackson Park Hospital and V.S.

was placed with his maternal grandmother, who cleared a DCFS background check and requested

placement. Sydnor explained that respondent was not listed on V.S.’s birth certificate so he was

not considered for placement.

                                                -3-
No. 1-22-0817

¶ 10   Respondent testified that on November 22, 2021, he was present at the hospital for V.S.’s

birth and on November 23, 2021, he signed the minor’s birth certificate and a voluntary

acknowledgement of paternity (VAP) for the minor. Respondent stated that “right after” he signed

the VAP, mother had a “mood swing” and requested that he be removed as the named father.

Respondent also stated that he refused to allow mother to use his address and she “snapped.”

Respondent thought he was added back to the birth certificate but did not have copies of any

documents he signed at the hospital and did not know the name of the hospital social worker who

provided the documents. Respondent acknowledged paternity. Respondent testified to an on-again,

off-again relationship with mother, and she was staying with him when she learned of her

pregnancy. However, they “bumped heads” and subsequently separated.

¶ 11   After the shelter care hearing and over respondent’s objections, the circuit court awarded

temporary custody of V.S. to DCFS finding that probable cause existed that the minor was

neglected and abused based on the allegations in the petitions of an injurious environment. The

court also ordered a DNA test to determine if respondent was V.S.’s father.

¶ 12                                   B. Status Hearings

¶ 13   Status hearings were held between November 2021 and February 2022. On November 30,

2021, Sydnor testified that she ran a criminal background check on respondent and learned that he

had more than 20 charges, with “four or six” convictions for defacing a firearm, possessing a FOID

card that was not his, and robbery. Respondent served five years in prison and completed probation

in 2016. Respondent did not have any pending criminal cases, and Sydnor did not believe that

respondent’s prior convictions were a bar to V.S. being placed with him. On February 4, 2022, the

                                              -4-
No. 1-22-0817

parentage test established that respondent was V.S.’s father, and the court entered a parentage

order for respondent.

¶ 14                                 C. Adjudication Hearing

¶ 15   The adjudication hearing was held on May 4, 2022.

¶ 16   At the adjudication hearing, Sydnor testified that she was assigned to investigate mother

on November 24, 2021, after receiving information that mother had other children in DCFS

custody and was having a psychiatric episode after giving birth to V.S. Sydnor went to the hospital

where she spoke with mother and respondent, who indicated that he was V.S.’s father, that he

wanted custody, and that he lived in a family building with relatives that would assist him with

V.S. Sydnor did not perceive respondent to be a risk to V.S. at that time.

¶ 17   Michael McKay testified for the State that he was a supervisor at ChildLink, the agency

assigned to mother’s other two children, neither of whom were respondent’s children. When V.S.

was born, mother was not participating in services and had not visited the children.

¶ 18   The State’s exhibits included mother’s medical records. In late November, when V.S. was

born, hospital staff determined that mother had acute psychiatric problems and was a threat to

others including V.S., and that she needed involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. Mother’s active

medical issues included acute postpartum psychosis and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type.

¶ 19   The records also indicated that a doctor also spoke with respondent, who indicated that

mother had been more “energetic, excited, and enthusiastic” in the prior week, which he attributed

to mother’s excitement about the baby. Respondent stated that he was mother’s partner for the

prior year, and she often said God chose her and would speak to her, which made him

uncomfortable because mother “puts [sic.] the voice first.” Respondent also indicated that he was

                                               -5-
No. 1-22-0817

concerned that mother could not care for V.S. due to her housing instability, religious beliefs and

history with DCFS.

¶ 20   Mother testified that she did not have mental health issues and stated that she was a “chosen

child.” Mother described issues with her relatives who cared for her other two children as the

reason she did not visit them.

¶ 21   The circuit court noted that when V.S. was born, mother and respondent signed a VAP, but

mother was acutely psychotic at the time and rescinded the VAP. It was unclear whether the VAP

was valid due to her mental health, which is why a DNA test was ordered at the temporary custody

hearing. The court told respondent that under those circumstances, it would not have been

appropriate for DCFS to place V.S. with him.

¶ 22   The court found V.S. was neglected due to an injurious environment under section 405/2-

3(1)(b) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)), and further found V.S. dependent due

to mother’s mental disability under section 2-4(1)(b) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(b) (West

2020)). Respondent’s attorney requested that the order reflect that respondent was non-custodial

when V.S. was born, or that mother was the sole person causing V.S.’s neglect. The State objected

and after an off-the-record discussion, the court noted that mother’s medical records showed that

respondent significantly downplayed mother’s mental health needs, and the court needed to know

that respondent would not leave V.S. in the care of someone that would harm him. The court then

stated that the dependency finding was to mother only but that the neglect finding would stand as

to both. The adjudication order noted that mother had to be separated from the minor by hospital

staff after the minor’s birth due to concern about mother’s mental health and behavior and that

                                               -6-
No. 1-22-0817

respondent downplayed mother’s mental health concerns. The dispositional hearing was then

scheduled for May 18, 2022.

¶ 23                                  D. Dispositional Hearing

¶ 24   The dispositional hearing was held on May 18, 2022, with respondent present. The State,

the GAL, respondent, respondent’s counsel and mother were all present in court via Zoom.

¶ 25   The GAL admitted two exhibits into evidence without objection by the parties: a March

23, 2022, integrated assessment and a March 7, 2022, DCFS service plan. The integrated

assessment was conducted by a licensed clinician to gather information about the family and

evaluate their service needs. The assessment noted that V.S. was diagnosed with a ventricular

septal defect in his heart in January 2022 and would be assessed for surgery when he was four

months old.

¶ 26   Respondent was interviewed in January 2022 and the clinical assessment reported that in

“SACWIS” 2, there were numerous intakes which contained concerns that respondent was in a

sexual relationship with a minor and one intake reporting that he admitted to doing so. An August

2020 SACWIS Intake also reported that respondent was having the minor recruit other girls.” Both

respondent and the minor denied the sexual relationship in December 2019. Respondent told the

clinical evaluator that he knew the minor and saw her every day, but she was a friend and he was

teaching her how to drive. Respondent also stated that his ex-girlfriend was jealous of him

spending time with the minor and falsely alleged that he was having sex with the minor. A DCFS

note from July 2020 indicated that respondent had three children with his ex-girlfriend who resided

with their grandmother in the same building where he lived but respondent did not see them often.

       2
           SACWIS is the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System operated by DCFS.

                                                -7-
No. 1-22-0817

Respondent told the evaluator that he co-parented with his ex-girlfriend and saw the children three

to four times a week. Further, respondent stated that the ex-girlfriend was violent towards him and

had previously hit him with a car.

¶ 27   According to an October 2021 criminal background check, respondent had been arrested

and charged 44 times with five convictions for dangerous drugs, larceny, robbery, and two

convictions for weapons offenses (the assessment does not list the dates of the convictions).

Respondent had also been arrested seven times for assault, six for dangerous drugs, five for

larceny, twice for invasion of privacy, and 19 times for traffic offenses. When respondent was

questioned by the evaluator about his criminal background, respondent stated that he was

convicted of a weapons offense after a gun was found in the backseat of a car he was riding in and

he successfully completed a bootcamp and probation. The evaluator also noted that a March 4,

2020, SACWIS intake reported that respondent may have had access to guns and gang

involvement.

¶ 28   Respondent and mother met in December 2020 and had a brief relationship. However, after

mother informed respondent that she was pregnant, she moved in with him. Respondent reported

that the pregnancy was planned and he thought that having a child with mother would give her

more of a focus so she could be in a better state of mind, and he could help her. Respondent

reported that he soon realized that mother could not care for a child and that mother would be

aggressive towards him. In November 2021, respondent reported that he had a live-in girlfriend

and told the evaluator in January 2022 that he was in a relationship with someone, but that person

would not see V.S. Respondent indicated that he wanted custody of V.S. once his parentage was

established.

                                               -8-
No. 1-22-0817

¶ 29   The clinical evaluator’s overall assessment of respondent noted that his criminal record

and the reports of the sexual relationship with the minor, if true, “would pose a risk to any child in

his care without appropriate and possible intensive interventions.” The evaluator questioned

respondent’s judgment with regard to his perception of mother and his self-perceived ability to

help her focus by having a baby together; and his history of choosing unsafe partners as he had

been the target of emotional and physical abuse in past relationships. Respondent was interested

in parenting V.S., had visited V.S. in his foster home, and lived in a building with relatives who

he believed would help him with V.S.

¶ 30   The evaluator recommended that respondent receive individual therapy and a Nurturing

Parenting Program (NPP), a competency-based parenting education and coaching service for

parents whose children had experienced trauma and adversity. Respondent was also recommended

for domestic violence service due to his reports of being a domestic violence victim. Lastly,

respondent needed to complete a drug evaluation, due to his history of “extensive” drug use.

¶ 31   Letitia Sanders, the assigned case manager from ChildLink, testified that V.S. was five

months old, was placed with his maternal grandmother, and that it was an appropriate placement.

V.S. had recently had heart surgery to repair a hole in his heart and was recovering in the hospital

at the time of the hearing. V.S.’s grandmother and respondent were supposed to receive training

on how to care for V.S. prior to his discharge. Mother was not engaged in services or visiting V.S.

¶ 32   Sanders testified that respondent needed individual therapy, a NPP, and drug testing.

Sanders had submitted those referrals, but the service providers had not yet contacted respondent.

Respondent tested negative for drugs in May 2022. Sanders planned to refer respondent for a

domestic violence assessment after he began or completed his other services. Additionally,

                                                -9-
No. 1-22-0817

respondent was having supervised visits with V.S. and there were no problems reported with those

visits.

¶ 33      Sanders indicated that respondent’s interactions with V.S. went well, and she found his

parenting skills were appropriate. Respondent appeared to have a very loving bond with V.S. and

his family members would assist him in caring for V.S. as they lived in the same building. Sanders

recommended that V.S. be returned to respondent but had not discussed her recommendations with

her supervisor.

¶ 34      On cross-examination by the GAL, Sanders first testified that V.S. should not be made a

ward of the court, and that respondent was fit, willing and able to care for V.S. Sanders believed

that respondent was capable of taking care of V.S. with the support of his family. The GAL told

Sanders that the issue for a dispositional hearing was whether the parents were fit, willing, and

able, and V.S. would be returned to whichever parent was capable of caring for him. The GAL

also told Sanders that if the parents still needed services, then V.S. would be made a ward of the

court, and the parents would receive reunification services. At that point, Sanders testified that she

believed V.S. should be made a ward of the court.

¶ 35      Sanders testified that she reviewed the DCFS integrated assessment and believed that

respondent should engage in therapy and the parenting program prior to receiving domestic

violence services so that he was not overwhelmed by too many services.

¶ 36      On cross-examination by respondent, Sanders testified that respondent was willing to

engage in services, and that she would follow up to make sure that the referred providers of

individual therapy and parenting classes would contact respondent. She also indicated that she had

                                                - 10 -
No. 1-22-0817

not yet visited respondent’s home, but planned to. Respondent reported to Sanders that he had a

crib and other items in his home for V.S.

¶ 37   The GAL informed the court that she was concerned that the caseworker was unprepared

and unfamiliar with the integrated assessment. In response the circuit court stated that it thought it

was clear from Sanders’ testimony that she felt respondent was referred for services and that

respondent needed supportive services. The court noted that respondent was only getting

supervised visits at that time and had not progressed to unsupervised or overnight visits. The court

also indicated that there was no reason to delay the domestic violence assessment while respondent

was engaged in other services. However, the court indicated that it did not believe that any of these

things would change the outcome the dispositional hearing.

¶ 38   Respondent testified on his own behalf that he wanted custody of V.S. and was willing to

participate in services, but was concerned that V.S.’s maternal grandmother and foster parent did

not have to take parenting classes so he questioned why he needed to. Respondent believed that

“deep down,” he did not feel as though there was any problem with him. However, respondent was

willing to do whatever he had to do and complained that he could have done all of his services by

that point, but the caseworker was slow. Respondent was willing to ensure that V.S. did not have

contact with anyone who was allowed to have contact with him.

¶ 39   At the conclusion of the disposition hearing, the circuit court adjudged V.S. a ward of the

court as being in his best interest and welfare, finding that both parents were unable to care for the

minor at that time. The court noted that reasonable efforts were made but were unsuccessful at

that time and ordered V.S. placed in DCFS’s guardianship. After indicating that both parents had

the right the appeal, the court addressed respondent directly:

                                                - 11 -
No. 1-22-0817

                “[Respondent] we are going to have a very quick permanency hearing. Just bear

       with us. You are obviously – the evidence presented today is that you have a great bond

       and relationship with your child. I want you to know that I heard that and I am well aware

       of that. There are services that you were just referred to that have not yet begun. And I just

       want to make sure that those services are in place and the case continues to go in a positive

       direction. But I don’t want you to be discouraged by your child being a ward. He is going

       to remain in his current placement. That’s not going to change. He is going to be with

       maternal grandmother.”

¶ 40   The circuit court then entered a written dispositional order finding both parents unable and

placing V.S. in DCFS’s guardianship. The matter then proceeded to a permanency hearing. The

court’s order indicated a goal of return home within 12 months and gave the agency discretion to

allow respondent unsupervised visits after his home was checked for safety and he began services.

The court found that respondent had made some progress towards return home. The case was set

for a permanency planning hearing on October 28, 2022.

¶ 41   Respondent filed his timely notice of appeal on June 9, 2022.

¶ 42                                         ANALYSIS

¶ 43   On appeal, respondent contends that: (1) the adjudicatory finding of neglect was improper

and deprived him of due process where the petition made no allegations against respondent and

thus denied him the opportunity to defend against the petition; (2) the adjudicatory finding of

neglect was against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (3) the disposition order should be

reversed where the circuit court failed to provide a factual basis for its disposition.

¶ 44                                        A. Timeliness

                                                - 12 -
No. 1-22-0817

¶ 45   Before discussing the arguments respondent raises in his appeal, we address the timeliness

of our decision. This is an accelerated appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a) (eff. July

1, 2018). Pursuant to Rule 311(a)(5), we are required to issue our decision within 150 days after

the filing of the notice of appeal, except for good cause shown. Petitioner's notice of appeal was

filed on June 9, 2022, making the deadline to issue our decision November 7, 2022. However,

petitioner filed three motions for extension of time before ultimately filing his appellant brief on

November 18, 2022. Thereafter, the State’s Attorney requested an extension to file its brief and

the Public Guardian filed two motions for extension to file its brief. Accordingly, we revised the

briefing schedule pursuant to those requests. 3 The Public Guardian’s brief was ultimately filed on

January 27, 2023, and the State’s Attorney’s brief was ultimately filed on February 2, 2023. The

case was not ready for disposition until February 9, 2023, and respondent’s reply brief was filed

on February 22, 2023. We therefore find good cause for issuing our decision after the 150-day

deadline. We now turn our attention to the merits of petitioner’s issues on appeal.

¶ 46                  B. The Adjudicatory Finding of Neglect (Respondent’s Issues I & II)

¶ 47   Respondent makes two arguments related to the adjudicatory finding of neglect. First,

respondent contends that the neglect finding was improper and deprived him of due process where

the petition for adjudication of wardship made no allegations against respondent, thus denying him

an opportunity to meaningfully defend against the finding of neglect. Second, respondent contends

that the adjudication order finding him neglectful should be reversed because the circuit court’s

finding of neglect was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

       3
           No objections were filed to any of the requests for extension.

                                                    - 13 -
No. 1-22-0817

¶ 48    However, both the State and GAL respond that respondent’s contentions are moot because

he does not also challenge the dependency finding, and only one ground of neglect, abuse or

dependency is needed to affirm a circuit court's adjudication order. In his reply brief, respondent

responds to the mootness argument that both the State and the Public Guardian are estopped from

arguing that it is irrelevant whether respondent was named as a perpetrator. Additionally,

respondent maintains that the circuit court’s “no-fault” dependency finding does not make his

challenge to the neglect finding moot.

¶ 49    A proceeding for adjudication of wardship represents a significant intrusion into the

sanctity of the family which should not be undertaken lightly. In re S.G., 2022 IL App (1st) 210899,

¶ 21 (citing In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d 441, 463 (2004)). It is the State’s burden to prove allegations

of neglect or abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. The State must establish that the

allegations are more probably true than not. Id. Cases involving allegations of neglect and

adjudication of wardship are sui generis, and must be decided on the basis of their unique

circumstances. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 17. This analytical principle underscores the fact-

driven nature of neglect and injurious environment rulings. Id.

¶ 50    Generally, a reviewing court will reverse the juvenile court’s determination only 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. Id. ¶ 22. Because a circuit court is in a superior

position to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence, a reviewing court will not

overturn the trial court’s findings merely because the reviewing court may have reached a different

decision. Id.

                                                 - 14 -
No. 1-22-0817

¶ 51    Section 2-21(2) of the Act provides that if the court determines that the minor is either

abused or neglected or dependent, then a dispositional hearing shall be held to determine whether

it is in the best interest of the minor to be adjudged a ward of the court. 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2)

(West 2020). As such, the court need make only one of those findings to proceed to a dispositional

hearing. The question before us is whether respondent’s challenge solely to the circuit court’s

neglect finding but not the dependency finding renders his appeal moot.

¶ 52    Courts of review will generally not decide abstract, hypothetical or moot questions.

McHenry Township Road District v. Pritzker, 2021 IL App (2d) 200636, ¶ 34. An appeal is

considered moot where there is no actual controversy, and a reviewing court cannot grant the

complaining party effectual relief. In re Marriage of Donald B. and Roberta B., 2014 IL 115463,

¶ 23.

¶ 53    The question of whether a respondent’s appeal of only one ground of an adjudicatory

finding and not another issue included in the adjudication order is moot has been decided on three

recent occasions, with opposite results.

¶ 54    First, in In re S.G., 2022 IL App (1st) 210899, respondent challenged only the circuit

court’s abuse finding but did not challenge the neglect finding or the dispositional order and the

public guardian argued that the appeal was moot. S.G., 2022 IL App (1st) 210899, ¶¶ 21, 24. In

determining that the appeal was not moot, a panel of this court rejected the proposition that a failure

to challenge all bases for an adjudication of wardship means that a parent is not entitled to

challenge any of the bases. Id. ¶ 24. The court additionally noted that we have regularly considered

cases in which only one of several bases is challenged. Id.

                                                - 15 -
No. 1-22-0817

¶ 55   The issue was next considered in In re G.U., 2022 IL App (1st) 220759, which was decided

by a different panel of this court after S.G. In G.U., the circuit court found all three named minors

to be neglected and additionally found one of the minors to be abused. Id. ¶ 2. On appeal, the

mother only challenged the finding of abuse, not the findings of neglect. Id. ¶ 19. The appellate

court first found that the issue of whether evidence established that the minors were neglected was

waived and because of the waiver, the court subsequently determined that the mother’s challenge

to the abuse finding was moot. The appellate court stated that the finding of neglect alone was

sufficient for the case to proceed to a dispositional hearing. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. The court specifically

noted that it was unclear what the practical effect would be even if it were to conclude that the

abuse finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. ¶ 20.

¶ 56   Finally, in In re J.R., 2022 IL App (1st) 221109, ¶ 38, a third panel of this court considered

whether the mother’s challenge to only the abuse finding and not the finding of neglect or the

dispositional order rendered her appeal moot. The court declined to follow S.G. because the S.G.

court did not address the mootness doctrine’s rationale, i.e., to limit the court’s review to actual

controversies in cases where the relief requested would have a practical effect. Id. ¶ 43. The court

chose instead to follow the rationale and holding of G.U. because, even if it found that the abuse

finding was erroneous, the dispositional order would not be vacated and the finding of the mother’s

inability to care for the minor would remain intact. Id. ¶ 45.

¶ 57   Turning to the case at bar, we agree with the decisions of G.U. and J.R., and find that the

portions of respondent’s appeal related to whether the circuit court’s adjudicatory determination

that V.S. was neglected is moot because respondent did not challenge the court’s finding of

dependency. Even if we were to conclude that there was error in the finding of neglect, the

                                               - 16 -
No. 1-22-0817

dependency finding would still be intact and thus the matter would still be subject to the

dispositional process. As such, any determination solely on the issue of the neglect finding is moot

as it would have no practical outcome.

¶ 58   However, we do take this opportunity to address respondent’s primary issue with the

adjudication findings, namely that he was not named as the perpetrator of the neglect or the cause

of the minor’s dependency which should preclude such findings against him. Respondent’s

arguments are without merit.

¶ 59   In any proceeding initiated pursuant to the Act, including an adjudication of wardship, the

paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 18. The

Act proscribes the procedures that must be followed for determining whether a minor should be

removed from his or her parents’ custody and made a ward of the court. Id.

¶ 60   Relevant to respondent’s first and second issues, the first step is the adjudicatory hearing

on the petition for adjudication of wardship. Id. ¶ 19. At the adjudicatory hearing, the court shall

first consider only the question of whether the minor is abused, neglected or dependent. Id., 705

ILCS 405/2-18(1) (West 2020). The plain language of this provision instructs the circuit court to

focus solely upon whether the child has been neglected. Id. Indeed, our supreme court has

concluded that the consideration of the relative blame of each parent for the child’s neglect at the

adjudicatory stage is improper. Id. ¶ 20. The cause of the neglect is not relevant at the adjudicatory

stage. In re Zoey L., 2021 IL App (1st) 210063, ¶29; Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d at 467. The Act

specifically instructs the court to consider only whether the minor is neglected and not whether the

parents are neglectful. Id.

                                                - 17 -
No. 1-22-0817

¶ 61   Here, the factual evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing, through both documentary

evidence and testimony, clearly established that V.S. was found neglected based on mother’s

behavior at the hospital and anticipatory neglect. Specifically, mother was separated from V.S.

after suffering a psychiatric episode following his birth and V.S.’s two siblings were also placed

in DCFS temporary custody in 2019 due to mother’s mental health issues.. Additionally, the record

supports the court’s finding, which respondent supported in the circuit court, that V.S. was

dependent based on the mother’s mental health issues. It is irrelevant as to which parent was

neglectful, the proper inquiry is whether the minor was neglected (or dependent), and we find that

the evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing supports the circuit court’s conclusions of

dependency and that they were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 62                            C. Dispositional Hearing

¶ 63   Respondent also contends that the dispositional order should be reversed where the

caseworker’s uncontroverted testimony overwhelmingly established that respondent was fit,

willing, and able to parent V.S., yet the circuit court adjudicated V.S. a ward of the court and

granted guardianship to DCFS without providing a factual basis for its decision. As noted above,

the circuit court found respondent unable to care for V.S. at the time of the dispositional hearing

and awarded guardianship to DCFS.

¶ 64   If the circuit court determines that the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent, then the

matter proceeds to a dispositional hearing at which it determines whether it is consistent with the

health, safety, and best interests of the minor and the public that the minor be made a ward of the

court. 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2) (West 2020). The court must hold a dispositional hearing within six

months of the minor’s removal from the home. 705 ILCS 405/2-22(4) (West 2020). At the

                                              - 18 -
No. 1-22-0817

dispositional hearing, the circuit court may commit the minor to wardship and place guardianship

and custody with DCFS if the court determines that (1) the minor’s parents are unfit or unable for

some reason other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train or discipline the

minor or are unwilling to do so and (2) that the health, safety, and best interest of the minor will

be jeopardized if the minor remains in the custody of his or her parents. 705 ILCS 405/2-27(1)

(West 2020). The paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. In re B.S., 2022 IL

App (2d) 220271, ¶ 31. Section 2-27’s purpose is not to terminate parental rights, but, rather, to

decide what future actions are in the best interests of the child and whether to make the child a

ward of the court. Id.

¶ 65    As noted above, a reviewing court defers to the trial court’s findings of fact, because it is

in the best position to observe the testimony of the witnesses, assess their credibility, and weigh

the relative evidence. Id. ¶ 32. We will reverse the trial court’s determination only 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. Id. Under the manifest weight standard, an appellate

court will affirm the trial court’s ruling if there is any basis in the record to support the trial court’s

findings. In re Custody of G.L., 2017 IL App (1st) 163171, ¶ 24.

¶ 66    In the case at bar, the evidence presented by the State and GAL indicated that respondent

needed services such as individual therapy, parenting classes, and domestic violence services due

to his report of being a domestic violence victim. None of those services had been completed nor

were they in process at the time of the hearing. Additionally, the caseworker had not visited or

assessed whether respondent’s home was an appropriate environment for V.S., who was at the

time of the hearing, hospitalized and recovering from a recent heart surgery. The circuit court

                                                  - 19 -
No. 1-22-0817

further noted that respondent only had supervised visits and was not yet receiving unsupervised or

overnight visits. The record contradicts respondent’s characterization of the caseworker’s

testimony; while it is clear that she supported respondent’s eventual reunification with V.S., she

agreed that at the time of the hearing, respondent was not able to care for V.S. without completing

the necessary services. Moreover, before officially entering its findings, the circuit court addressed

respondent directly that the evidence presented showed that respondent had a great bond and

relationship with V.S., there were services referred which had not yet begun, and that the court

wanted to make sure that the services were in place and that the case continued to go in a positive

direction. We conclude that the evidence supports the circuit court’s finding that respondent was

unable to care for V.S. at the time of the dispositional hearing and order granting guardianship and

custody to DCFS. The circuit court’s determination was not against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

¶ 67                                      CONCLUSION

¶ 68   In conclusion, we find that respondent’s issues on appeal related to the circuit court’s

adjudication of neglect were moot where he failed to also challenge the dependency finding. We

affirm the circuit court's dispositional finding that respondent was unable to take care of V.S. and

order granting guardianship and custody to DCFS. The adjudication and disposition orders of the

circuit court of Cook County are affirmed.

¶ 69   Affirmed.

                                                - 20 -