NOTICE 2026 IL App (5th) 260068-U NOTICE Decision filed 06/09/26. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NOS. 5-26-0068, 5-26-0071 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 WYATT C. and ANYIAH C., Minors ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) De Witt County. ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) v. ) Nos. 25-JA-8, 25-JA-9 ) Patrick C., ) Honorable ) Karle E. Koritz, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE McHANEY delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hackett and Clarke concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The dispositional order that found it to be in the best interest of the minors to be made wards of the court and placed in the custody and guardianship of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) is affirmed because the circuit court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and the selected disposition was not an abuse of discretion.
¶2 The respondent, Patrick C. (Father), appeals the circuit court of De Witt County’s January
27, 2026, dispositional order. Father challenges the circuit court’s finding that he was unfit and
unable to parent the minors and asserts that the circuit court abused its discretion in finding that
removal of the minors from his custody was in their best interest. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
1 ¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On October 7, 2025, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship for Wyatt C. and
Anyiah C., the children of Father and Ashley B. (Mother). 1 The petitions alleged in count I that
the minors were neglected in that their environment was injurious to their welfare in that Mother
had been found unfit in De Witt County case Nos. 23-JA-22 and 23-JA-23, had not been restored
to fitness, and that Father possessed methamphetamine in the home of the minors on October 6,
2025. 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2024). Count II alleged that the minors were neglected in
that they were not receiving the proper or necessary support including adequate food, clothing,
and shelter in that Father allowed the minors’ residence to contain human and dog feces, inoperable
sinks, smell of feces, black mold, moist clothing throughout the house, a hole in the ceiling,
Wyatt’s bed was dirty without a sheet, Anyiah’s bed was not accessible for sleeping, and the
totality of the circumstances rendered the minors’ home inadequate for their residency. Id. § 2-
3(1)(a).
¶5 A temporary custody order was entered on October 8, 2025, placing the minors in the care
of a foster parent. The circuit court found probable cause for the petitions because Mother was
previously found unfit and had not been restored to fitness, and Father possessed
methamphetamine in the minors’ home, and the home was in disrepair. The circuit court granted
temporary custody of the minors to the Guardianship Administrator of DCFS.
¶6 The matter proceeded to an adjudicatory hearing on January 8, 2026. Mother admitted the
allegations of count I that pertained to her. The State provided a factual proffer, asserting that in
De Witt County case 23-JA-22 and 23-JA-23, the minors were found neglected due to Mother’s
illicit drug use and she was never restored to fitness. As Father did not admit to the allegations, the
1 Mother was a party included in the petition, but she is not a party on appeal. 2 matter proceeded to hearing. The State first called Father. Father testified that he was the biological
father of the minors and the children were residing with him in Clinton, Illinois, on October 6,
2025. The only people who lived in the residence were Father, his girlfriend Tamara Moore, and
the minors. On October 6, 2025, Mother was at the home with her boyfriend, helping to get the
minors ready for school. Father stated that on the morning of October 6, 2025, law enforcement
showed up at the home to execute a search warrant. Father declined to answer any questions about
the search as it pertained to the pending methamphetamine charges against him, invoking his fifth
amendment right.
¶7 Father then described the home, stating that it was a one-bedroom home but there were
“two other areas set up” where the minors slept. There were bunk beds set up in the living room
for Anyiah, and Wyatt’s bed was in the small dining area. Father and Tamara slept in the bedroom.
The minors’ sleeping arrangements did not have any doors and were not separate from the living
area. Father testified that he had an indoor dog as a pet, and the dog likely went to the bathroom
in the mudroom that morning, as he had not been let out yet. The mudroom was near the area
where Wyatt slept. As to the human feces in the toilet, Father stated that somebody could have left
it there instead of flushing it. Father said there were no plumbing issues in the house and the
standing water in the sinks was from Anyiah and Tamara doing their hair and “leavin[g] water in
the sink.”
¶8 When asked about the black mold allegations, Father said that there was a roof leak in the
ceiling, but he did not believe it was black mold. Father was aware of the leak, but was not in the
process of fixing it because he did not have the money to correct it. The leak had been going on
for two months, and Father placed a bowl beneath the leak when it rained. Father stated that he
was on “good terms” with Mother regarding the minors, and she was at the home that day.
3 ¶9 Father testified that he was not sure if Wyatt’s bed had a sheet or not, and it was likely dirty
because “he’s a young boy and he plays a lot, plays in dirt, and I’m sure it was a little dirty.” Father
stated that Anyiah slept on the couch because she liked to watch television before falling asleep,
but her bed also had clothing on it, which the State described as “not accessible for sleeping.”
Father was not sure if there was moist clothing in the home because Tamara did the laundry, but
the minors usually had their clothes hanging up or in a dresser.
¶ 10 Father testified that he had home surveillance video cameras facing the back and front of
the property, in the garage, and in the living room. The cameras displayed the footage on a monitor
in the garage. There were also two sheds on the property, and sometimes Father would permit
people to stay in the sheds.
¶ 11 On cross-examination from Father’s counsel, he testified that the dog was “generally house
trained,” but would defecate or urinate in the home “off and on” depending on when the dog was
let outside to use the bathroom. Father or Tamara would clean up after the dog if that happened.
The home was only one level, so the hole in the ceiling did not “create a fall hazard” and when it
rained, the leak would only “drip” into a bowl. As to people staying in the shed, it would only be
sporadically and for two or three days at a time, and the people would be allowed inside the house
if Father was home.
¶ 12 On cross-examination from the guardian ad litem (GAL), Father testified that he was not
sure if the feces in the mudroom from the dog that morning was the only feces in the house. Father
stated that the people who stayed in the shed would only have access to the house and bathroom if
Father was home, but they did not have access throughout the night.
¶ 13 The State then called Detective Lindemulder, who testified that he was a detective with the
De Witt County Sheriff’s Department assigned to assist the Illinois State Police Task Force 6. As
4 part of the task force, Lindemulder investigated allegations of delivery of illicit narcotics and
drugs. Leading up to October 6, 2025, the investigation incorporated multiple controlled buys of
illicit drugs, oftentimes with a court order for an eavesdropping device. Lindemulder sought and
obtained a search warrant for Father’s house due to controlled buys of cocaine and
methamphetamine out of a garage at the residence, and Lindemulder obtained information that
Father and Tamara had knowledge of the activities on the property.
¶ 14 The search warrant was executed on October 6, 2025, and law enforcement found illicit
drugs and paraphernalia in the garage, inside the house, and a “big shard of methamphetamine in
an ice maker in the kitchen.” The kitchen was a common area accessible to all occupants of the
house. When the search was conducted, Father, Tamara, Mother, Mother’s boyfriend, and the two
minors were in the house. Lindemulder spoke to Father at the scene and at the jail. Father admitted
that the drugs and paraphernalia were his. The drugs tested positive for methamphetamine. Father
told Lindemulder that he “normally smoked methamphetamine in the garage,” but occasionally
smoked methamphetamine before he went to bed. Father indicated to Lindemulder that “he was
aware that there were some issues out in his garage,” but did not state that he “absolutely knew
what was going on.” When Lindemulder told Father that there were controlled buys out of his
garage, Father provided the correct name of who sold the drugs in his garage.
¶ 15 On cross-examination from Father’s counsel, Lindemulder testified that neither Father nor
Tamara admitted to receiving drugs in exchange for letting people use their property. Father
admitted that the methamphetamine and paraphernalia in the bedroom were his, but denied
knowing about the methamphetamine in the ice machine. Father stated that he normally used
methamphetamine in the garage to “avoid being around the children,” but “needed to have some
at night” and brought it into his bedroom.
5 ¶ 16 On redirect examination from the State, Lindemulder testified that Father informed him
that Tamara “occasionally” used methamphetamine. As to the “shard” of methamphetamine found
in the ice maker, the machine did not have a lock on it and it was accessible to anyone within the
house. Upon inquiry from the court, Lindemulder stated that the ice machine was a stand-alone
appliance located in the floor of the kitchen.
¶ 17 The State then called Sergeant Benjamin Wilford of the Illinois State Police, who testified
that he assisted in executing a search warrant for narcotics at Father’s residence. Wilford stated
that he went through the entire house and the buildings on the property, describing the home as
“disheveled” with clothes piled up all over including on the bunk bed and that there was a “path”
to get through the house. Wilford said that while he was searching through the clothing in front of
the washer and dryer, he stopped due to the presence of animal feces. In the kitchen, Wilford
observed “what looked like black mold on the ceiling above where the sink was” and a “hole that
looked like you could see the rafters” above the stove. The bed in the small dining area, Wyatt’s,
was “dirty,” with the mattress ripped and the box springs visible. Where Anyiah slept on the couch,
there were baskets of clothes, some dry, some moist. In the bathroom, the sink was full of water
and there was fecal matter in the toilet.
¶ 18 Wilford testified that he spoke with Anyiah, who stated she slept on the couch, and he
observed that the bottom bunk bed was inaccessible for sleeping. The moist clothing was in the
living room in baskets. Wilford described finding the animal feces in the laundry area, in the
clothing and on the floor, and that area was open to the rest of the house. The State played and
admitted into evidence body camera footage taken from another inspector on the scene, which
Wilford confirmed was an accurate depiction of the house that day.
6 ¶ 19 On cross-examination from Father’s counsel, Wilford stated that the video was taken after
the SWAT team executed their portion of the search warrant. Wilford did not attempt to flush the
toilet or drain the water in the sink during the search. On cross-examination from the GAL, Wilford
testified that he did not see the condition of the house prior to the search warrant being executed,
but entered the home after the SWAT team was done with its search. The parties presented no
further witnesses or evidence.
¶ 20 The State argued that Mother was previously found unfit due to her usage of
methamphetamine and there was no evidence that she addressed those concerns through treatment.
The State said that there were drugs and paraphernalia found in Father’s bedroom, the ice machine
in the kitchen, and in the garage. The drugs in the home were accessible to the minors. Father
admitted to being a frequent user of methamphetamine, and Tamara was as well, which created an
unsafe environment for the minors.
¶ 21 Father also permitted friends to stay on the property “on and off” while they sold drugs out
of the garage. The minors were also familiar with the individuals staying on the property. Father
denied direct knowledge of the drug sales but had a camera surveillance system set up with a
monitor in his garage. As to the house, the State argued that the conditions were not “necessarily
fit” for the minors to be residing there.
¶ 22 Father’s counsel asserted that the allegations were in “two sets,” one for a “dirty-home”
case and the other for a drug use or possession case. As to the “dirty-home” case, the statutory
language includes a minor who was not receiving the proper care necessary for the minor’s well-
being including adequate food, clothing, and shelter. As to the drug use case, the statutory language
includes a minor whose environment was injurious to his/her welfare. The minors were reported
as healthy and clean with no observable injuries by a doctor in the investigation report. Anyiah’s
7 teacher did not notice any signs of abuse or neglect and Anyiah appeared clean and well cared for.
Father’s counsel argued that the condition of the minors showed that the home was not dirty
enough to cause neglect. Further, Father “went through efforts to keep any drug usage away from
the children.” The argument that the surveillance system was being used to monitor drug dealing
was “entirely speculative.”
¶ 23 The minors conducted interviews with Children’s Advocacy Center. Anyiah stated that she
did not believe Father used drugs and that visitors were not allowed inside the house. Father’s
counsel stated that “the most troubling fact” was that there was a shard of methamphetamine in
the ice machine, which was “presumably accessible to the children.” Father denied knowledge of
the shard, and there was no evidence that the minors regularly accessed the machine. Father’s
counsel argued that Father’s drug use would not meet the level of neglect necessary to establish
prima facie neglect. Father’s counsel asked that the petition be denied.
¶ 24 The GAL argued that the State met its burden and it was not a “close call.” Father used
methamphetamine in his bedroom in his home where the minors resided. Multiple controlled buys
occurred on his property, and while Father wanted to “claim deniability of that, it [was] still his
duty as a parent to ensure that there [were] not drug sales going on on his property where his
children reside.” Father knew who was selling drugs, and the GAL argued that this knowledge
indicated that “he certainly had knowledge or suspicion that the individuals that he was allowing
to use his home as a flop house were selling drugs on the property.” Father testified that his friends
were only allowed in the home when he was present, so either Father placed the shard into the ice
machine, or he was present when someone else placed it. The GAL argued that this implied that
Father had “knowledge that there was not only drugs present in his room that he used whenever
he either needed to sleep or needed to be high, but also that he was aware or should have been
8 aware that there was additional methamphetamine in his kitchen in open access to his children.”
Further, the videos of the home showed it was uninhabitable for the minors. The GAL argued that
the petition of adjudication should be granted.
¶ 25 The circuit court stated that it considered the evidence, exhibits, and arguments presented.
The circuit court said that it looked at the totality of the circumstances, including the state of the
house and the drug usage or activity on the property. The court considered Mother’s admission of
the allegation of her previous finding of unfitness. The condition of the house itself “might not rise
to the level of injurious environment,” despite the cramped living space and piles of debris with
only paths to walk through the house. The house needed repairs, and Father said that was due to a
lack of financial resources, but the court said significant money had been spent on a surveillance
system.
¶ 26 The circuit court found that Father had smoked methamphetamine in the house, and there
was “significant drug usage and drug trafficking in the yard.” The court was “not convinced” that
Father did not know about the drug usage and trafficking out of his garage, and the surveillance
system was more likely tied to drug activity than home protection.
¶ 27 The circuit court found that the State met its burden to show that the minors were neglected
in that their environment was injurious in counts I and II. The court emphasized that the purpose
of the adjudicatory hearing was to determine if the minors were neglected, not which party
neglected the minors. The circuit court entered a written adjudicatory order the same day, granting
the petition and finding the minors to be neglected, based on the following facts:
“Mother previously found unfit in 23-JA-22 & 23 based on Mother’s drug usage creating
an injurious environment for the minor & sibling; Mother has not addressed her illicit drug
9 use and has not been found fit. Father used methamphetamine in the home and possessed
methamphetamine while minor was in the home; inadequate shelter.”
¶ 28 A dispositional report was filed on January 20, 2026. Father did not participate in an
integrated assessment for “legal reasons.” Father did complete an assessment in 2024, and that
information was used to complete the report. Father had a previous indication for substantial risk
of physical injury/environment injurious to health and welfare by neglect in 2023 to 2024. Father
permitted the minors to be left in Mother’s care despite her unfitness. No services were
recommended, and the family completed aftercare services. Father also had a history of
methamphetamine use, but he declined to participate in any drug toxicology screenings due to his
criminal case. Father had a criminal history including assault, burglary, dangerous drugs,
fraudulent activity, larceny, obstruction of justice, and traffic offenses.
¶ 29 As to parenting, the report noted that Father had “not demonstrated safe care for his
children.” The minors were exposed to illicit substances, drug paraphernalia, and unsafe people.
Father allowed Mother to care for the children as well. Father “demonstrated limited
perceptiveness and empathy to the circumstances of the youth as he does not acknowledge
problems or how his behavior has impacted the children’s safety and wellbeing.” Father even
coached and encouraged the minors to not cooperate with DCFS throughout the case.
¶ 30 Father’s goals were to cooperate with DCFS and the Center for Youth and Family Services
(CYFS); achieve and maintain an alcohol and drug-free level of personal functioning; gain an
understanding of mental health and learn and apply coping skills; resolve any pending legal issues
and abide by the terms of his probation; gain an understanding of anger management skills and
apply them to his daily life; provide for the needs of the minors and make appropriate parenting
choices; obtain and maintain a legal source of income; and obtain and maintain safe and
10 appropriate housing. The report noted that Father did not sign any initial paperwork or consents,
did not permit a home check, and did not maintain contact with the caseworker due to his verbal
aggression toward CYFS. The report recommended that Father be found unfit, and custody and
guardianship of the minors be granted to DCFS.
¶ 31 The matter proceeded to a dispositional hearing on January 27, 2026. The State stood on
the dispositional report as evidence, which the circuit court considered. No other parties presented
evidence. The State argued that the goal of return home within 12 months was appropriate, and
asked that custody and guardianship remain with DCFS and the minors be made wards of the court.
Father’s counsel stated that he was in support of a return home goal and had no additional argument
for the court. The GAL agreed with the recommendations of the report.
¶ 32 The circuit court found that it was consistent with the health, welfare, and safety of the
minors to be made wards of the court. Both parents were found unfit as they had not participated
in services. The permanency goal was set to return home in 12 months, and custody and
guardianship was placed with DCFS. A written order was entered the same day, finding Father
unfit and stating that Father needed to comply with the services included in the shelter care report,
and granting the petition. Father timely appealed.
¶ 33 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 34 On appeal, Father argues that the circuit court’s dispositional finding was against the
manifest weight of the evidence and constituted an abuse of discretion.
¶ 35 A. Adjudicatory Finding
¶ 36 The Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2024)) provides a
step-by-step process to be used in determining whether a child should be removed from his or her
parents and made a ward of the court. In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d 441, 462 (2004). Upon the filing
11 of a petition for wardship by the State, the Act provides that a temporary custody hearing shall be
held during which the court shall determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the
child is neglected, whether there is an immediate and urgent necessity to remove the child from
the home, and whether reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the removal of the child or
that no efforts reasonably can be made to prevent or eliminate the necessity of removal. 705 ILCS
405/2-10 (West 2024).
¶ 37 Following placement of a child in temporary custody, the circuit court must make a finding
of abuse, neglect, or dependence before it conducts an adjudication of wardship. Id. § 2-21; In re
N.B., 191 Ill. 2d 338, 343 (2000). Section 2-3(1)(b) of the Act defines a “neglected minor” to
include “any minor under 18 years of age *** whose environment is injurious to the minor’s
welfare.” 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2024). In general, the term “injurious environment” has
been interpreted to include “the breach of a parent’s duty to ensure a ‘safe and nurturing shelter’
for his or her children.” In re N.B., 191 Ill. 2d at 346 (quoting In re M.K., 271 Ill. App. 3d 820,
826 (1995)). Accordingly, 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 Arthur H., 212
Ill. 2d at 463.
¶ 38 At a proceeding for adjudication of wardship, the State must prove the allegations of
neglect by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 463-64. In other words, the State must establish
that the allegations of neglect are more probably true than not. Id. at 464. The circuit court’s
findings regarding wardship and fitness at the dispositional hearing stage are given great deference
because it has the best opportunity to view and evaluate the parties and their testimony. In re
Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1052, 1064 (2006); In re T.B., 215 Ill. App. 3d 1059, 1061 (1991).
Because a circuit court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh the
12 evidence, a reviewing court will not overturn the circuit court’s findings merely because the
reviewing court may have reached a different decision. In re Lakita B., 297 Ill. App. 3d 985, 994
(1998). A circuit court’s determination of wardship or fitness will be reversed “only if the factual
findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence.” In re Kamesha J., 364 Ill. App. 3d 785,
795 (2006). A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion
is clearly apparent. In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 208 (2001).
¶ 39 Father specifically argues that the State failed to prove the minors were neglected because
he did not “knowingly expose[ ] the minors to drug trafficking activity” and that the conditions in
the home were due to financial limitations. The circuit court relied on the “totality of the
circumstances,” combining the allegations of drug use and the condition of the home.
¶ 40 The legislature has stated that the purpose of an adjudicatory hearing is “to determine
whether the allegations of a petition *** that a minor under 18 years of age is *** neglected ***
are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” 705 ILCS 405/1-3(1) (West 2024); In re Arthur
H., 212 Ill. 2d at 465. During the adjudicatory hearing, the court hears evidence on the State’s
petition for adjudication to determine if the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent based on that
evidence. In re Zion M., 2015 IL App (1st) 151119, ¶ 23.
¶ 41 Here, the State’s petition alleged that the minors were neglected due to Mother being
present with the minors despite being unfit and Father possessing methamphetamine in the home
of the minors for count I, and unsafe and unsanitary living conditions for count II.
¶ 42 As to count I, Mother, while not the custodial parent, admitted to being present in the home
with the minors despite a previous finding of unfitness. Mother was never restored to fitness after
the 2023 petitions alleging that the minors were neglected due to her illicit drug use. Father testified
that Mother came to his residence regularly to help get the minors ready for school. The circuit
13 court considered this in its finding because it demonstrated that Father allowed the minors to be in
the presence of an unfit adult. Mother had a history of illicit drug use and abuse that led to a prior
DCFS case, and she was never restored to fitness through treatment or services. Father chose to
allow Mother to see the minors daily to get them ready for school despite the risk she posed. We
have previously found that parental conduct that poses a risk can illustrate an injurious
environment even if a minor has not yet suffered any harm. See In re K.F., 2023 IL App (1st)
220816, ¶¶ 49-52 (summarizing cases and finding that leaving minors in the care or presence of
unsafe adults with a history of child abuse and a “bad temper” (In re M.K., 271 Ill. App. 3d 820,
827 (1995)) or a history of neglect and abuse (In re Jordyn L., 2016 IL App (1st) 150956, ¶¶ 35,
39-40) creates an injurious environment for the minors).
¶ 43 In addition to Mother being in the presence of the minors, Father also exposed the children
to illicit drugs and paraphernalia. Father argues that he was not the one selling drugs and attempted
to limit the minors’ exposure to drugs. However, he admitted that he occasionally smoked
methamphetamine in his bedroom, and law enforcement also located a “shard” of
methamphetamine in the ice machine, which was not locked and could be accessed by any
household member. Father denied knowing of its existence, but admitted none of his friends who
stayed on the property were allowed into the home unless he was present. He thus either knew of
the methamphetamine, or had reason to know of its existence in the home. Law enforcement also
located additional drugs and paraphernalia in the garage, where Father’s friends were alleged to
have sold drugs. Controlled buys were conducted there, and Father acknowledged that there were
“some issues” in his garage but denied any direct knowledge. Father was able to provide law
enforcement with the name of the individual who participated in the controlled buys without being
14 prompted. The circuit court stated that it was “not convinced that [Father] did not know about that
drug usage and drug trafficking out of his garage.”
¶ 44 While Father argues that the minors appeared unharmed due to the circumstances described
above, an injurious environment may be found based on parental conduct that poses a risk, even if
a child has not yet suffered any harm. In re K.F., 2023 IL App (1st) 220816, ¶ 52. Even if Father
did not “knowingly expose[ ] the minors to drug trafficking activity,” “neglect is the failure to
exercise the care justly demanded by the circumstances and encompasses both willful and
unintentional disregard of parental duties.” In re John Paul J., 343 Ill. App. 3d 865, 879 (2003).
¶ 45 Father’s behaviors of using methamphetamine in the home, the presence of a shard of
methamphetamine in the ice machine available to the minors, drug paraphernalia in the home and
garage, additional drugs located in the garage, and multiple drug sales occurring on the property
show that the minors were neglected. Further, it was undisputed that Mother was regularly in the
presence of the minors despite being unfit.
¶ 46 As the circuit court noted, the purpose of an adjudicatory hearing is to determine whether
the minors were neglected, not which parent is responsible for the neglect. In re Arthur H., 212 Ill.
2d at 467. Based on the facts described, it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence to
find that the minors were neglected due to an injurious environment under count I. “Only a single
ground for neglect need be proven, and thus when the circuit court has found a minor neglected on
several grounds, we may affirm if any of the circuit court’s bases of neglect may be upheld.” In re
Faith B., 216 Ill. 2d 1, 14 (2005). As such, the circuit court’s adjudicatory finding of neglect is
affirmed.
15 ¶ 47 B. Dispositional Finding
¶ 48 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 2024).
“At the dispositional hearing, the court shall determine whether it is in the best interests of
the minor and the public that the minor be made a ward of the court, and, if the minor is to
be made a ward of the court, the court shall determine the proper disposition best serving
the health, safety and interests of the minor and the public. The court also shall consider
*** the permanency goal set for the minor, the nature of the service plan for the minor and
the services delivered and to be delivered under the plan. All evidence helpful in
determining these questions, including oral and written reports, may be admitted and may
be relied upon to the extent of its probative value, even though not competent for the
purposes of the adjudicatory hearing.” Id. § 2-22(1).
¶ 49 “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 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.
“[T]he term ‘unfit’ in the section relating to removing custody and guardianship from a parent
following a finding of neglect differs in meaning from the unfitness required to be found for
16 termination of parental rights for purposes of appointing a guardian with consent to adopt.” In re
T.B., 215 Ill. App. 3d 1059, 1061 (1991).
¶ 50 Following a determination of wardship and a finding that the parents are unfit, the circuit
court is tasked with determining a disposition that best serves the minor’s interests. In re Al. S.,
2017 IL App (4th) 160737, ¶ 40.
“Under section 2-27(1) of the Juvenile Court Act, the trial court may commit a minor to
DCFS wardship if it determines that the parent is unfit or unable, for some reason other
than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minor and
that the health, safety, and best interests of the minor will be jeopardized if the minor
remains in the custody of the parent. [Citation.] *** The health, safety and interests of the
minor remain the guiding principles when issuing an order of disposition regarding the
custody and guardianship of a minor ward. [Citation.] The trial court’s determination will
be reversed 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.
[Citation.]” In re Kamesha J., 364 Ill. App. 3d at 795.
A circuit court “abuses its discretion when no reasonable person would agree with its decision.”
In re M.P., 408 Ill. App. 3d 1070, 1073 (2011).
¶ 51 On appeal, Father argues that the circuit court’s finding that he was unfit and unable to care
for the minors was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the court should not have
relied upon his lack of participation in services during a “short period of time” between the minors
being placed in the care of DCFS and the dispositional hearing, which was three months. At the
time of the hearing, Father had not completed any paperwork, signed any disclosures, did not
participate in the integrated assessment, and did not maintain contact with CYFS due to his
17 aggressive behavior toward the agency. The circuit court may consider whether a parent completed
all or any of his or her services when determining fitness. In re R.R., 409 Ill. App. 3d 1041, 1046-
47 (2011) (incomplete services may be considered when determining fitness). Father had not
engaged in any services and did not keep in contact with CYFS for the three months the case was
pending. As such, it was not against the manifest weight for the circuit court to find Father unfit.
¶ 52 As to the circuit court’s determination that it was in the minors’ best interest to remove the
minors from the custody of Father, Father only argues, “[T]he circuit court’s decision to remove
the minors and place custody and guardianship with DCFS, rather than consider less restrictive
alternatives, was unreasonable in light of the limited evidence presented at disposition.” Father did
not provide any further argument or explanation as to how it was an abuse of discretion. Thus,
Father has forfeited review of his argument for failing to present well-reasoned argument. See Ill.
S. Ct. R. 341(h) (eff. May 25, 2018). Forfeiture notwithstanding, Father’s argument that it was an
abuse of discretion to remove the minors from his custody still fails.
¶ 53 “The wardship determination is based on the best interest to the child when considering the
totality of the circumstances surrounding the child’s life.” In re D.S., 2018 IL App (3d) 170319,
¶ 15. The circuit court stated that while reasonable efforts had been made to keep the minors in the
home, the efforts have not eliminated the necessity for removal. The court also found the service
plan to be appropriate.
¶ 54 Based on the totality of the circumstances, we find that a result opposite to that reached by
the circuit court as to fitness and wardship was not clearly apparent, and the result reached by the
circuit court was supported by the evidence. It was not against the manifest weight of the evidence
to find Father unfit and unable to care for the minors, and it was not an abuse of discretion to select
a disposition that placed the minors in the custody and guardianship of DCFS.
18 ¶ 55 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 56 Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the De Witt County circuit court.
¶ 57 Affirmed.