NOTICE 2026 IL App (5th) 260196-U NOTICE Decision filed 07/09/26. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NOS. 5-26-0196, 5-26-0197 cons. 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 ______________________________________________________________________________
In re REMBRANDT H. and ELYZABETH H., ) Appeal from the Minors ) Circuit Court of ) Champaign County. (The People of the State of Illinois, ) ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) v. ) Nos. 25-JA-53, 25-JA-54 ) Elyzabeth S., ) Honorable ) Colleen M. Ramais, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE VAUGHAN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Boie and Hackett concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court’s dispositional order making the minors wards of the court is affirmed where the trial court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 In this consolidated appeal, respondent, Elyzabeth S. (Mother), appeals the trial court’s
March 3, 2026, dispositional order making the minors wards of the court. 1 For the following
reasons, we affirm.
1 We note that throughout the record on appeal, consisting of a common law record, report of proceedings, and exhibits, Mother’s name at times is spelled “Elizabeth.” However, the report of proceedings and notice of appeal spell her name, “Elyzabeth.” 1 ¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 A. Adjudicatory Hearing
¶5 On June 17, 2025, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship alleging that
Mother’s children, Rembrandt H. (R.H.) (born July 2013) and Elyzabeth H. (E.H.) (born March
2017), were neglected based on an injurious environment under section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile
Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2024)). Count I was based
on domestic violence between Mother and the minors’ father, Marvin H. (Father), 2 while count II
was based on Father’s mental health. Later that year, on November 10, 2025, the State filed a
supplemental petition for each minor, adding count III based on substance abuse.
¶6 The matter proceeded to an adjudicatory hearing beginning on December 9, 2025. Olyvia
H., Mother and Father’s adult daughter, testified that she moved out of the family home on
November 9, 2024, after her father allegedly tried to commit suicide. After work that day, Olyvia
was in her room when she heard the minors yelling, “call the cops,” “daddy’s dying.” Olyvia went
to the basement where she saw Father lying on the floor. According to Olyvia, he “had tried to
commit suicide [by] hanging himself.” Mother was in the basement as well, drunk and looking
“completely beat up, like swollen beyond recognition.” Her face “was purple” and “[h]er eyes
were bloodshot.” Olyvia claimed Mother “was swollen on her forehead, on her cheeks, beyond
recognition.” The minors were also there crying, leading Olyvia to send them upstairs to her
bedroom.
¶7 After Father got up from the floor, he ran outside “looking for something to hit himself
with,” ultimately finding a fishing pole that he began “poking himself with.” Olyvia followed him
to “a small *** building right next to [their] house” where she found him crying, “on his hands
2 Father is not a party on appeal. 2 and knees, *** talking to God, asking why he was the way he was.” Olyvia eventually called the
police because she needed “a safe adult *** to handle the situation,” and neither of her parents
were in a position to do so. Olyvia’s testimony further revealed that the night before, her parents
had been arguing about alcohol, cheating, and “a lot of paranoia,” while the minor children were
present. Part of the argument stemmed from Mother buying alcohol, notwithstanding that Father
was a recovering alcoholic. Olyvia even hid a bottle of alcohol at Father’s request, but later
discovered the bottle was missing. That same night, Mother “kicked the dry wall in,” a common
occurrence in the home. Olyvia also saw her parents “[p]hysically fighting” and “pushing each
other” while the minors were present. This too was a common occurrence.
¶8 Following the incident on November 9, 2024, Olyvia obtained an order of protection (OP)
against her parents. She eventually got the police and Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS) involved. Olyvia stayed at her aunt’s house for the next couple weeks, after which she
told her parents that she did not “feel safe coming back” to the family home. According to Olyvia,
E.H. told her about a domestic incident between her parents that occurred in March 2025. The
minors were in the car with Mother and Father when they began “fighting over a ring that [Father]
was wearing.” The argument escalated, and Mother “grabbed the steering wheel” while Father was
driving, causing the car to swerve. Father then “punched” Mother “to get her to stop.” Olyvia
admitted, however, that she never asked her parents about the incident.
¶9 Regarding corporal punishment, Olyvia testified that her parents struck her in the past, as
well as the minors. Olyvia claimed they only struck her once when she refused to do the dishes,
but they struck the minors on “multiple” occasions “[w]henever there was a disciplinary action to
be taken.” Olyvia discussed Father’s mental health and substance abuse issues with him on
multiple occasions, noting that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and
3 depression that he claimed were “caused by [Mother].” He took medication for these issues.
Besides drinking, Father also “smok[ed] weed,” which Olyvia had observed. Likewise, Mother
discussed her own mental health and substance abuse issues with Olyvia. While Olyvia never
witnessed her mother smoking weed, she knew “she had edibles in the house.” Mother claimed
the edibles helped “her relax before school” and “sleep.” On one occasion, Mother showed Olyvia
a bottle of alcohol and “over-the-counter Tylenol or something,” and said, “this is what I’m going
to do.”
¶ 10 During cross-examination, Olyvia was asked about some prior inconsistent testimony
concerning the alleged domestic violence between Mother and Father. Father’s counsel
highlighted that at Olyvia’s order of protection hearing in late 2024, Olyvia testified that she had
never seen her father hit Mother, contrary to her current testimony that she saw her parents
“[p]hysically fighting” and “pushing each other” on the night of November 8, 2024, something
that had happened on multiple occasions (see supra ¶ 7). On redirect, Olyvia clarified that she
distinguished between two levels of physical violence concerning her parents, stating:
“When I was younger[,] they would try to teach us how to fight and how to defend
ourselves. I would wrestle with my dad sometimes, but there were times when I was crying
because I felt like I—like I was being strangled, and I couldn’t breathe. And you know,
there’s a point where it’s playing or training, if you want to call it [that], and there’s points
when it’s not. And there were points when my parents were angry at each other, and would
push each other, and shove each other. My mom usually ma[de] the first throw, and my
dad would restrain her. I guess that’s where I would call it hitting, is if he’s pushing her;
but I should clarify that that was pushing, not hitting.”
4 As will be discussed more below, the family exercised together, including boxing with each other
as part of their workouts.
¶ 11 Next, Jeffrey Myers, an asset protection manager at a Meijer store in Champaign, testified
regarding an incident at the store on July 14, 2025, involving “shoplifters stealing a large amount
of liquor.” Myers and another manager stopped the male shoplifter, who then left the cart and
exited the store. Myers called the police, while following the man outside. He told two of the
store’s detectives to “deal with the *** female” shoplifter, who “was trying to go out the general
merchandise doors.” Meanwhile, a second man, who Myers identified as Father, approached
Myers in the parking lot yelling and screaming, “saying he was just looking out for his brother”
and “talking about [how] he was *** in the Army, and [had] lost people.” Father then “punched”
Myers,” knocking his glasses off. Myers did not need medical attention, but he did report the
incident to police. Myers did not remember seeing any children present, but after reviewing video
footage of the incident, he recalled “seeing two or three children that [Father and the female] left
with.”
¶ 12 Officer Yaleina Anaya of the Rantoul Police Department testified that on November 9,
2024, she responded to Mother and Father’s residence for a “suicide by hanging.” She spoke to
Mother, who was sitting in a vehicle with her head on the steering wheel. Officer Anaya observed
“swelling” and “bruises around both of her eyes.” While Mother first reported that her eyes were
swollen from crying, she later claimed that her injuries were from Father “hitting her throughout
the night.” Mother expressed concern about Father since he had been “struggling with PTSD due
to his prior military service.” She then reiterated that Father “had hit her” and showed Officer
Anaya another bruise on her hand. Mother was not sure how she got the bruise but indicated “she
may have hit [Father].” She did not let Officer Anaya photograph her injuries. Officer Anaya
5 believed Mother was drunk because she smelled like alcohol and indicated she had been drinking
and arguing with Father the night before. 3
¶ 13 Patrol Sergeant Kyle Gregg of the Rantoul Police Department testified that around 11 p.m.
on November 9, 2024, Mother called dispatch, asking why officers were patrolling around her
house. She denied being at the residence, indicating a neighbor had called and told her that officers
were “continually driving by” her house. Sergeant Gregg explained to her that officers patrolled
everywhere in the village and that he had no control over their route. Mother mentioned that Father
had a PTSD episode earlier in the night, then “repeatedly said that he had not assaulted her.”
Sergeant Gregg asked Mother where Father was, but she had not spoken to him, speculating “he
was possibly somewhere in the Danville area with friends.” Sergeant Gregg then asked Mother if
she wanted to recant her earlier statements to police that Father had assaulted her, but she “just
continued asking why officers were driving around the neighborhood.”
¶ 14 Officer Johnathan Grice of the Rantoul Police Department testified that on November 9,
2024, he was dispatched to Mother and Father’s residence for a reported suicide attempt, but he
believed it was really a “domestic incident” that had occurred between them. Officer Grice
suspected that Mother had been drinking because she “smelled strongly of an alcohol-based
beverage.” Additionally, her eyes were “discolored and swollen.” Mother explained that Father
“believed she was cheating on [him]” and had hit her. However, she later said that Father had tried
to hang himself, not beat her up. 4 Officer Grice found an “ethernet cord” with a “six-inch *** loop
*** hanging from a ‘flimsy’ *** pipe in the rafters” in the basement. He noted that children were
3 Without any objection, Officer Anaya referred to a police report she wrote on November 9, 2024, to refresh her recollection. Specifically, that Mother claimed she had purchased alcohol the night before and that she and Father had been drinking since approximately 10 p.m. that night until Officer Anaya arrived at their residence the following afternoon. 4 Without objection, Officer Grice’s recollection was refreshed with a police report he authored regarding the incident on November 9, 2024, as to what Mother had told him that day. 6 present at the scene, but he did not speak to them. When Officer Grice interviewed Mother away
from the home later that day, she claimed that she was “trying to lift [Father] up” during his suicide
attempt and “that’s when he struck her multiple times.”
¶ 15 Officer Grice also spoke to Father, who had dried mud on his arms and knees. Father
claimed he “freaked *** out” and “was having a mental health episode.” Regarding the mud on
his arms and knees, Father explained he had been outside “praying *** or talking to God.” Further,
this was not his first PTSD episode; he had five or six other episodes in the past.
¶ 16 Tatiana Marshbanks, a DCFS investigator, testified that in March 2025, she was assigned
to investigate allegations of neglect to the minors based on possible domestic and substance abuse
between their parents. According to Marshbanks, R.H. claimed that his parents did not “typically
fight” but they yelled and argued. Additionally, R.H. had observed “marks *** or bruising to
[Mother’s] head” in the past. E.H. spoke to Marshbanks about the March 2025 incident in the car
wherein she claimed that Mother “grabbed the steering wheel” and Father “backhanded [Mother]
while they were driving.” E.H. claimed her mother was hurt and had to be seen by a doctor.
¶ 17 Marshbanks also spoke to Mother about the March 2025 incident. According to Mother,
the family was driving on spring break when they almost hit a deer. Mother “went into the
windshield,” which was “how she got the injuries to her head, and *** her hand.” Marshbanks
spoke to Mother about the November 9, 2024, incident as well. Mother claimed she had tried to
stop Father from committing suicide, “and in the process of doing so his body seized and fell on
her, causing her injuries.” Following that incident, the minors were briefly removed from the home
as there were many concerns about domestic violence between Mother and Father.
¶ 18 Marshbanks spoke to Father, who essentially repeated the same information as Mother
concerning the March 2025 driving incident. Father, however, added that Mother was not wearing
7 a seatbelt, and therefore she hit the windshield when he slammed on the brakes. Father also
admitted that he used marijuana, and, on special occasions, he used cocaine. Following a drug test,
Father tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine. Additionally, Father stated this was the first
time police were called to the home, that it was not a domestic violence incident, and that he was
a combat veteran suffering from PTSD. Father claimed he was receiving mental health treatment
from Veteran Affairs (VA) in Danville, but he would not sign a consent form to confirm such
treatment. Father further claimed he was taking medication for his mental health issues. When
Marshbanks met with Father toward the end of her investigation, she believed he was under the
influence because he was “all over the place” and “sweating profusely.” He would “talk to [her]
straight,” then suddenly be “upset, crying, [and] irate.”
¶ 19 Marshbanks ultimately found that the allegations in this case indicated neglect based on
drug use and positive test results, as well as Father’s own admission that he used drugs, and E.H.’s
admission of domestic violence between her parents. Following Marshbanks’ testimony, a recess
was taken.
¶ 20 When court resumed on February 10, 2026, Father was called to testify. He stated that on
the night of November 8, 2024, he and Mother were celebrating their anniversary. They had been
“intimate” that night and woke up the next morning “still celebrating.” When they woke up, Father
“already had a rope around [his] neck” from “experimental sex” the night before. Father stated,
“And the next minute, she—I was cutting myself down from a rope, and she was—she had been
holding me up.” Father claimed he had never tried anything like this before and did not plan to
commit suicide, stating: “[I]t wasn’t planned. It wasn’t organized.” Rather, “it was something from
waking up in the morning *** and taking a shot of alcohol. Just that—it was just a bad
8 combination.” Father maintained that he did not hit Mother and that her injuries were the result of
him seizing or convulsing while he was hanging and she was holding him up.
¶ 21 Additionally, Father and Mother boxed together, consensually, as part of their workouts.
He acknowledged they would hit each other while boxing, sometimes resulting in injuries, albeit
rarely. Father learned to box in the military, then later taught Mother and their three children. He
denied ever strangling Olyvia while boxing, and claimed he never had problems disciplining
Olyvia until she got older and started making bad decisions.
¶ 22 Father suffered from nightmares and took medication to help dull them at night. That night,
however, he was not on his medication. Father claimed he had been weaning off his medication
due to concerns about side effects, and he had been reaching out to his therapist to try and find
alternative medication. Father had been dealing with mental health issues since 2012, and he was
diagnosed with PTSD in 2022. He had been working on these issues with a therapist at the VA
hospital’s mental health clinic. Moreover, Father told his family that if he was having a mental
health episode, to call 988, the mental health hotline. When asked why he did not remember trying
to hang himself, Father speculated that it was due to one of his recurring dreams where “Saddam
Hussein [is] hanging from a statue, and it’s coming down.” He stated: “I’m assuming that’s
probably a dream I had. That’s probably something that was just fuzzy in my head,”
acknowledging the “alcohol didn’t help.”
¶ 23 Following the November 9, 2024, incident, the minors were taken to their aunt’s home,
while Mother stayed with a coworker, Kerry Hanson, who was a mandated reporter. Hanson called
DCFS about the incident. At some point, a DCFS caseworker visited Mother and Father, asking if
they “needed services.” They declined. Father explained they were trying to help “reduce [the
worker’s] caseload,” and told her they would “get services” and “family therapy” as “soon as
9 Olyvia [got] home.” Father further testified that since the incident, he had been seeing a
psychiatrist and taking a different medication that was less “harm[ful] to [his] body.” He was
current on all medications and had also started alternative treatments, like magnetic therapy. He
was currently seeing a psychologist through the VA on a “call basis” and receiving mental health
counseling at Rosecrance.
¶ 24 Although Father claimed he rarely consumed alcohol since the November 9, 2024, incident,
he acknowledged that the day before he testified, in the presence of the minors, Officer Grice
ticketed him for illegal transportation of alcohol, specifically, “two empty beer cans.” Father
claimed he had a drink earlier that day with his mother at Chili’s Restaurant to celebrate her being
“cancer free.” According to Father, Officer Grice had been “constantly harassing” him since
November 9, 2024. 5
¶ 25 Mother’s testimony was largely consistent with Father’s account of what happened on
November 9, 2024, and the events preceding it. Mother added that she and Father woke up in the
basement, where their bedroom was located, and started doing laundry. He woke up with a noose
around his neck from their “experiment[al]” sex the night before. Mother went upstairs to use the
bathroom, then came back downstairs and found Father trying to hang himself. She “tried to ***
lift him [up] to release the pressure that was around his neck.” His body subsequently “started
shaking, [and] convulsing,” which, eventually, knocked her over. She called the minors to help get
Father down. R.H. tried to cut Father down but was too short, so Father “grabbed the knife out of
[R.H.’s] hand and cut himself down.” Mother got injured while she was holding Father up; he did
not intentionally hit her. She emphasized that Father had “never hit [her].” She also acknowledged
they would box, consensually, sometimes, adding that they both owned boxing gloves.
5 Father further claimed that during the ticketing incident, Officer Grice made a comment about Father “beat[ing]” up his wife. 10 ¶ 26 Mother stated that she had been with Father for nearly 20 years, and he suffered from night
terrors the entire time. Father had been on and off medication throughout the course of their
relationship, and he only drank on occasion until the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, when he began
having problems with alcohol. Mother also agreed with Father’s account of the March 2025 driving
incident wherein he allegedly slammed on the brakes to avoid hitting a deer, causing her to hit the
windshield and suffer some injuries. She eventually went to a local medical clinic when her injuries
did not go away.
¶ 27 After hearing arguments from the parties, the trial court found that the State failed to prove
by a preponderance of the evidence count I of the petition that was based on domestic violence
between Mother and Father. The court, however, found that the State proved counts II and III
based on Father’s mental health and substance abuse, respectively. In reaching its conclusion, the
court stated that it found Olyvia’s testimony credible “in terms of seeing her parents drink, the
amount, the amount that they drank that night, how inebriated they were, [and] the fact that ***
[Father] asked her to hide a bottle of *** vodka in her room that night.” The court entered a written
adjudicatory order the same day, February 10, 2026.
¶ 28 B. Dispositional Hearing
¶ 29 The case proceeded to a dispositional hearing on March 3, 2026, before a different trial
court judge. 6 The trial court indicated it received and reviewed DCFS’s dispositional report. That
report revealed, as relevant here, that Mother and Father met in college almost 20 years ago at
Eastern Illinois University following Father’s active duty in the Navy. Mother received a
bachelor’s degree in elementary education and a master’s degree in art education, while Father
received a bachelor’s degree in fine art. Mother and Father owned their home and were able to
6 The adjudicatory hearing was before the Honorable Robert Jacobson, while the dispositional hearing was before the Honorable Colleen Ramais. 11 meet the financial needs of their family. They were, however, undergoing mortgage restructuring
due to some financial hardships from attorney fees in this case. Additionally, Father’s mother lived
with the family.
¶ 30 Mother was a tenured Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM)
teacher in the Rantoul City School District. Father was receiving federal disability assistance and
was working on obtaining state disability as well. At the time of the report, he remained in the
family home, “which both [Father] and [Mother] appreciate[d] because it allow[ed] them to
continue their desired family structure of always having one parent available for the family.”
Further, both parents experienced childhood trauma. Due to the trauma, Mother asked Father to
teach “her to defend herself.”
¶ 31 After DCFS opened this case, Mother “briefly sought therapy services” and had been
taking an anti-depressant medication. According to Mother, her family does not speak to her due
to their “racial bias” against Father. Mother described a daily family routine, consisting of her and
Father exercising together before getting the children up and ready for school. Father would then
make breakfast for the family to eat together, before dropping the kids off at school. After school,
the family would eat together, followed by Mother and Father helping the children with their
homework.
¶ 32 Mother and Father had cooperated with their intact caseworkers and kept the workers
informed of any household changes. They had also consistently complied “with providing releases
of information to service providers and other professionals.” Mother and Father completed weekly
random drug screenings during the first 90 days of the case being opened. The screenings were
subsequently reduced to twice per month. While Father regularly tested positive for THC, and
once each for cocaine and alcohol, he “present[ed] and behave[d] in a consistent manner.” Further,
12 neither of the children “have reported seeing their father being intoxicated or under the influence,”
nor “have [they] stated they feel unsafe in their home environment or when interacting with their
father.” The report noted that despite Father’s positive test results, Mother maintained sobriety
“throughout all her random drug screens”; thus, there was a sober caregiver present for the minors.
Both parents also completed a parenting course through Family Advocacy in Champaign County.
Father attempted to enroll in a partner abuse program, but he was not allowed to due to some
apparent miscommunication between DCFS and Prevention and Treatment Services (PATS).
Additionally, Father obtained counseling services and was currently receiving mental health
services from the VA in Danville. He shared his medical records with his intact caseworker.
¶ 33 Father suffers from tinnitus in his left ear and has hearing aids for both ears. Additionally,
he had been diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety disorder, insomnia, and chronic fatigue from insomnia.
He had been prescribed medication “for mood and sleeping.” Father had two assault charges with
no convictions. However, he had maintained involvement with his recommended services and had
begun seeking additional services outside of his intact case.
¶ 34 The report further revealed that R.H., currently in middle school, excelled in school and
music. He participated in the school band and played percussion. Mother and Father have shown
support for R.H.’s musical interests and talents, and they regularly attended his performances.
Additionally, they “bought guitars for the family to learn an instrument together.” R.H. “reports
no concerns living with his parents and sister” and can demonstrate how much his parents “love
and care for him,” even when he was in trouble, which was rare. Further, he denied witnessing any
substance or domestic abuse between his parents, and he reported “feeling comfortable and safe in
his home with his mother and father.” R.H. participated in weekly therapy sessions at Rosecrance.
13 ¶ 35 E.H., currently in elementary school, also excelled in school and enjoyed it. She reports
“no concern living with her parents and brother” and “can demonstrate her perception of how she
feels her parents love and care for her, both in and out of trouble.” Like her brother, E.H. attended
weekly therapy sessions at Rosecrance. E.H. does not understand why DCFS was involved with
her family. She “love[s] her parents and feels her parents love and care for her, even when they
are upset with her or she is in trouble.”
¶ 36 Following the investigation, DCFS recommended that Mother and Father maintain custody
of the minors, but that guardianship be granted to DCFS. Jordyn Hayes, the family’s caseworker,
testified that it was a difficult decision, but ultimately, DCFS recommended that guardianship be
granted to DCFS due to “there being concerns of the positive drug screen.” Hayes stated, “that was
the ultimate tilt towards the guardianship” recommendation. 7 DCFS noted no safety concerns were
present and that interactions between the parents and minors were loving and respectful. Further,
DCFS noted no concerns between the parents, and that Mother did “not display behavior associated
with a domestic violence survivor.” While DCFS acknowledged the severity of Father’s positive
drug screen results for cocaine and alcohol, it noted those concerns “have been addressed with
[Father] both individually and with [Mother] present.” Additionally, Mother “remains a sober,
willing and able caregiver who is present for the children.” Finally, DCFS recommended that both
parents continue to cooperate with DCFS’s recommendations and that a permanency hearing be
held within six months.
¶ 37 The trial court ultimately found it in the best interests of the minors to be made wards of
the court and adjudged neglected due to their exposure to substance abuse and the effects of
Father’s mental illness. The court, however, found that Mother and Father were fit, able, and
7 Hayes indicated that it was her supervisor who made the recommendation that guardianship be granted to DCFS. 14 willing to exercise custody and guardianship of the minors. The court ordered Mother and Father
to fully cooperate with DCFS and the court appointed special advocate (CASA), comply with all
service plans, and correct the conditions that required the minors to be adjudged wards of the court.
The court entered its written dispositional order on March 3, 2026.
¶ 38 This appeal followed.
¶ 39 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 40 On appeal, Mother argues the evidence presented in this case did not support the trial
court’s finding that it was in the best interest of the minors to make them wards of the court. The
Juvenile Court Act sets forth a two-step process to determine whether minors should be made
wards of the court. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 18. The first step involves an adjudicatory hearing
at which the trial court determines whether the allegations in the petition that the minors are abused
or neglected are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. ¶ 19. “Preponderance of the
evidence is that amount of evidence that leads a trier of fact to find that the fact at issue is more
probable than not.” In re K.T., 361 Ill. App. 3d 187, 200 (2005). At this stage of the proceedings,
the focus is whether the minors are neglected, not whether the parents are neglectful. In re Z.L.,
2021 IL 126931, ¶ 59.
¶ 41 If the trial court finds neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, the court then moves to
step two, where it conducts a dispositional hearing to determine whether it is consistent with the
health, safety, and best interests of the minors to be made wards of the court. Id. ¶ 60. “At this
point, the trial court may consider the acts and/or omissions of the parents.” Id. “The purpose of a
dispositional hearing is not to terminate parental rights.” In re April C., 326 Ill. App. 3d 225, 237
(2001). Rather, “a dispositional hearing serves the purpose of allowing the circuit court to decide
what further actions are in the best interests of a minor, and the hearing and ruling on whether to
15 make a minor a ward of the court gives the parents ‘fair notice of what they must do to retain their
rights to their child’ in the face of any future termination proceedings.” Id. (quoting In re G.F.H.,
315 Ill. App. 3d 711, 715 (2000)).
¶ 42 A trial court’s finding of neglect is afforded significant deference and will not be disturbed
on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence, i.e., only when the opposite
conclusion is clearly evident or when the court’s ruling is unreasonable, arbitrary, and not based
on the evidence. In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d 441, 464 (2004); In re Angela P., 2022 IL App (1st)
211092, ¶ 45. After reviewing the record in this case, we cannot say the trial court’s finding that
the minors were neglected due to an injurious environment was against the manifest weight of the
evidence.
¶ 43 Section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act provides that a neglected minor includes any
minor under 18 years of age whose environment is injurious to his or her welfare. 705 ILCS 405/2-
3(1)(b) (West 2024). Neglect is generally defined as the failure to exercise the care that
circumstances justly demand, and it encompasses both willful and unintentional disregard of
parental duty. In re K.T., 361 Ill. App. 3d at 200. Since the term has no fixed meaning, neglect is
determined based on the specific circumstances of each case. Id. Likewise, an injurious
environment “is an amorphous concept that cannot be defined with particularity 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.” Id. at 200-01. In any proceeding under the Juvenile Court Act, the paramount
consideration is the best interest of the minors. In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d at 464.
¶ 44 In making a “best interest” determination, courts shall consider the following factors:
“(a) the physical safety and welfare of the child, including food, shelter, health, and
clothing;
16 (b) the development of the child’s identity;
(c) the child’s background and ties, including familial, cultural, and religious;
(d) the child’s sense of attachments, including:
(i) where the child actually feels love, attachment, and a sense of being
valued (as opposed to where adults believe the child should feel such love,
attachment, and a sense of being valued);
(ii) the child’s sense of security;
(iii) the child’s sense of familiarity;
(iv) continuity of affection for the child;
(v) the least disruptive placement alternative for the child;
(e) the child’s wishes and long-term goals, including the child’s wishes regarding
available permanency options and the child’s wishes regarding maintaining connections
with parents, siblings, and other relatives;
(f) the child’s community ties, including church, school, and friends;
(g) the child’s need for permanence which includes the child’s need for stability
and continuity of relationships with parent figures, siblings, and other relatives;
(h) the uniqueness of every family and child;
(i) the risks attendant to entering and being in substitute care; and
(j) the preferences of the persons available to care for the child, including
willingness to provide permanency to the child, either through subsidized guardianship or
through adoption.” 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2024).
Additionally, courts may consider the minors’ relationship with their present caretaker, including
the nature and length of that relationship, and the effect that a change in placement would have on
17 the minors’ emotional and psychological well-being. In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 883, 893
(2004). The trial court, however, need not articulate any specific rationale for its decision, and we
may affirm the court’s decision without relying on any basis used by the court below. Id.; In re
Jaron Z., 348 Ill. App. 3d 239, 263 (2004).
¶ 45 Here, the minors were adjudicated neglected based on an injurious environment after police
were called on multiple occasions for incidents involving their parents’ mental health and/or
substance abuse when the minors were present. As set forth above, police were called to the
minors’ home on November 9, 2024, for Father’s attempted suicide. Several witnesses, including
Mother and Father’s adult daughter, Olyvia, two police officers, Mother, and Father, testified
largely consistently regarding the attempted suicide. Their combined testimony revealed that
Mother and Father had been drinking heavily and that Father had attempted to hang himself in the
basement in the presence of the minors. Mother sustained visible injuries from the incident. A third
police officer, Sergeant Gregg, testified that he spoke to Mother the night of the alleged suicide
attempt wherein she claimed that Father had a PTSD episode and provided conflicting statements
as to whether Father had assaulted her. Specifically, she told Officer Gregg that Father had not
assaulted her, even though she told other officers that he had earlier in the day. Furthermore, the
combined testimony revealed that Father had suffered from PTSD and other mental health issues
for a number of years. Testimony from Olyvia and a DCFS investigator, Marshbanks, also revealed
that Father had struggled with substance abuse, namely, alcohol, marijuana, and, on occasion,
cocaine.
¶ 46 Additionally, police were called to the Meijer’s store in Champaign the following summer
for a shoplifting incident involving Father, his brother, and a female. At some point, Father
approached the store’s manager, Myers, yelling and screaming. Father then allegedly punched
18 Myers in the face, knocking his glasses off. According to Myers, video footage revealed that
children were present during the incident. Father was involved with the police again when he was
ticketed for illegally transporting alcohol in his car on February 9, 2026, the day before he testified
in this matter. The minors were present during that incident.
¶ 47 The foregoing demonstrates that Mother and Father failed to exercise the care that
circumstances justly demand. Even if it was unintentional, they disregarded their parental duty by
allowing the minors to be exposed to Father’s mental health struggles, as well as his substance
abuse problems. These issues were not isolated to his November 9, 2024, suicide attempt. As
stated, Father was involved with police at least two other times following that incident. The minors
were present on at least one of those occasions. Mother and Father’s failure to provide the minors
with a safe and nurturing shelter by exposing them to these incidents was neglectful and amounted
to a breach of their parental duty.
¶ 48 Mother argues there was sufficient evidence showing that since those incidents, she and
Father have addressed their mental health and/or substance abuse issues that formed the basis of
the lower court’s neglect finding. Specifically, they have fully cooperated with DCFS and engaged
in all referred services, and Father has been successfully receiving mental health therapy and
treatment. Mother further points out, among other things, that both parents are college-educated,
able to meet their family’s financial needs, and that the minors had no concerns about living with
their parents and felt loved and supported by them. As to Father’s prior drug screenings that yielded
positive results, those issues have since been addressed.
¶ 49 While we agree that Mother and Father have taken steps toward correcting their past
behavior that ultimately led to the trial court’s neglect finding, we cannot say the court’s ruling
making the minors wards of the court and ordering their parents to cooperate with DCFS and
19 CASA and comply with all service plans, was unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the
evidence. As set forth, the evidence showed a pattern of mental health and substance abuse issues
that continued after Father’s November 9, 2024, suicide attempt. Father was even ticketed, in the
presence of the minors, for having “two empty beer cans” in his car the day before he testified.
Moreover, Father’s continuous positive drug screening results, despite Mother’s negative results,
proved to be a concern for DCFS and the lower court. To the extent he was being treated by the
VA for these issues, there was very little evidence presented concerning his progress.
¶ 50 Regardless, given the minors’ repeated exposure to mental health and substance abuse
issues by one or both parents, we conclude that the trial court properly found them neglected based
on an injurious environment. As the evidence in the record shows that the court’s determination to
make the minors wards of the court, while allowing custody and guardianship to stand with their
parents, was consistent with the health, safety, and best interests of the minors, we affirm that
decision.
¶ 51 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 52 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s February 10, 2026, adjudicatory order
and its March 3, 2026, dispositional order.
¶ 53 Affirmed.