¶ 29 The Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2020)) establishes a two-step process for determining whether a child should be removed from his or her parents' custody and made a ward of the court. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 13. First, the trial court holds an adjudicatory hearing to determine whether the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent.
¶ 27 The Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2020)) establishes a two-step process for determining whether a child should be removed from his or her parents' custody and made a ward of the court. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 13. First, the trial court holds an adjudicatory hearing to determine whether the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent.
¶ 39 The Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2020)) establishes a two-step process for determining whether a child should be removed from his or her parents' custody and made a ward of the court. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 13. First, the trial court holds an adjudicatory hearing to determine whether the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent.
¶ 37 The Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2020)) establishes a two-step process for determining whether a child should be removed from his or her parents' custody and made a ward of the court. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 13. First, the trial court holds an adjudicatory hearing to determine whether the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent.
A litigant satisfies this burden of proof by presenting evidence that renders a fact in issue more probable than not. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 14. A defendant who fails to meet this burden of proof
¶ 32 Relying on In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 21, M.W. further asserts that the period of time between L.W.'s neglect and M.D.'s birth warrants reversal. In D.A., the evidence of neglect was limited to "factual allegations of past events and adjudications involving respondent's previous children," which occurred between two to five years before D.A.'s birth. Id. ¶¶ 8, 19.
¶ 59 On this point, Aylissa cites In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676. However, that decision does not support her argument.
¶ 61 On this point, Aylissa cites In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, yet that decision does not support her argument. In that case, the State alleged that the minor's environment was injurious to his welfare, in part because he tested positive at birth for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).