Opinion
4-23-0572 4-23-0573 cons.
11-17-2023
In re J.Z.-U. and B.H., Minors v. Julianne C., Respondent-Appellant The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee,
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County Nos. 22JA237 22JA238 Honorable Karen S. Tharp, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE DOHERTY delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
DOHERTY, JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: The trial court's findings in its adjudicatory and dispositional orders were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 The State filed amended petitions for adjudication of wardship alleging J.Z.-U. (born 2010) and B.H. (born 2021) were neglected minors. Following a hearing, the trial court adjudicated the minors neglected and set the matter for a dispositional hearing. At the dispositional hearing, the court found respondent Julianne C. unfit, unwilling, or unable to have custody of the minors and granted custody and guardianship to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). In this consolidated appeal, respondent argues the court's adjudicatory and dispositional orders are against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 On November 30, 2022, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship, seeking to adjudicate the minors neglected under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a), (b) (West 2022)). The petitions alleged the minors were neglected because (1) they were not receiving the proper care and supervision necessary for their well-being (id. § 2-3(1)(a)), (2) their environment was injurious to their welfare as a result of domestic violence between respondent and her husband, Jerry C. (id. § 2-3(1)(b)), and (3) their environment was injurious to their welfare due to respondent's substance abuse (id. § 2-3(1)(b)).
¶ 5 On December 2, 2022, the State filed an amended petition with regard to J.Z.-U., making minor changes to the original petition, including an update to his father's address. The State also filed an amended petition with regard to B.H. on April 6, 2023, updating the names of her biological parents and clarifying that respondent and Jerry C. are not her parents but are her guardians.
¶ 6 At the adjudicatory hearing on April 6, 2023, respondent testified she is the biological mother of J.Z.-U. and the biological aunt of B.H. She and Jerry C. are B.H.'s guardians. Respondent stated she lived in Tennessee from May 2022 until the end of September 2022, when she and Jerry C. got into an argument and he was arrested for domestic violence. According to respondent, the minors were home during the incident, but they were sleeping. Respondent testified a worker from the Tennessee Department of Children's Services subsequently came to her residence and told her J.Z.-U. and respondent's other son, L.U., were interviewed at school. Respondent told the worker Jerry C. was not there and she refused to allow the worker inside. Based upon that interaction, the worker advised respondent the authorities would be seeking a protective order barring Jerry C. from seeing the children. Respondent testified she and the children moved to Illinois to be with family in September 2022.
¶ 7 Respondent testified that an order was entered in Tennessee on October 24, 2022, prohibiting any unsupervised contact between the children and Jerry C. In November 2022, respondent became aware that Jerry C. had moved to Illinois, but she did not resume her relationship with him until the first week of February 2023. Respondent was aware that a DCFS investigator contacted J.Z.-U. and L.U. at school after they moved to Illinois, but she stated Jerry C. was not living at her residence at that time.
¶ 8 Respondent spoke with a Tennessee caseworker named Ashley Jackson the Wednesday before Thanksgiving in 2022. Jackson stated she needed to see the children on Zoom to make sure they were safe prior to closing the case in Tennessee on November 29, 2022. According to respondent, Jackson saw the children on Zoom and said the case was being closed.
¶ 9 Respondent testified that she spoke to police officers on the date of the domestic violence incident on September 15, 2022, and Jerry C. was arrested and charged with domestic violence. After his criminal case was resolved, Jerry C. showed up at her home in Springfield, stating he found her address through a mutual e-mail message. Jerry C. lived with her at the time of the hearing, but the minors had already been removed by DCFS when he found her at her house.
¶ 10 Respondent believed she was cooperative with the DCFS investigator in Illinois. She did not allow the investigator into her home on the first contact in October 2022, because respondent was on her way to the hospital to visit B.H. However, she allowed the investigator to speak with J.Z.-U. outside the house and the investigator talked to L.U. at school. Respondent told the investigator she could come back any time after B.H. was released from the hospital. Respondent did not have any other contact with the investigator until a month later in November 2022, when J.Z.-U. did not come home from school and the investigator came to her house with police officers, took B.H., and left. The investigator told respondent the minors were being taken into protective custody because Jerry C. was in the home. Respondent denied having Jerry C. in the home. The next time respondent saw the investigator was December 7, 2022, when she brought a caseworker to respondent's home. Respondent allowed the investigator to walk through the house at that time.
¶ 11 On cross-examination, respondent admitted the minors were present during the September 2022 domestic violence incident and both she and Jerry C. were intoxicated at the time. Respondent stated that neither she nor the minors had any contact with Jerry C. again until after the minors were taken into protective custody in Illinois. Although she had no contact with him, Jerry C. continued to deposit money into her bank account every week. According to respondent, she and Jerry C. began visiting with the minors during March 2023, and that was his first contact with them since he was arrested in September 2022.
¶ 12 Ashley Jackson, an assessment worker and case manager with the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, testified by Zoom that she spoke with J.Z.-U. at his school on September 19, 2022, about the domestic violence incident. J.Z.-U. stated respondent and Jerry C. had been drinking alcohol and fighting. Jerry C. pushed respondent through a door, causing her to fall into a room where J.Z.-U. was watching his younger sister. During the fight, Jerry C. also broke respondent's phone and watch. When Jackson asked J.Z.-U. if Jerry C. was still living with them, he stated Jerry C. was living there and Jerry C. was allowed to be there as long as "we didn't look at him." J.Z.-U. also told Jackson they had been to a carnival and Jerry C. won him a prize. Jackson testified that the conditions of release on Jerry C.'s criminal charges prohibited his presence there.
¶ 13 Jackson spoke with respondent later that day, but respondent would not allow Jackson into her home. When Jackson told respondent she needed to make sure B.H. was safe, respondent brought B.H. to the door. According to Jackson, respondent was cooperative to an extent, but she would not talk about the domestic violence incident or allow her into the house. Jackson told respondent the Tennessee Department of Children's Services would seek a restraining order against Jerry C. on behalf of the minors given the indications that he was still living in the home in violation of his conditions of release. Jackson obtained the restraining order and attempted to serve it on respondent the next day, September 20, 2022, but respondent was no longer at the home. Jackson called respondent and learned she had moved to Illinois. Respondent appeared in court for the restraining order by Zoom. Jackson testified that, while she still had concerns about domestic violence and whether Jerry C. was with respondent and the minors, the Tennessee investigation was closed because the family had moved to Illinois.
¶ 14 Mary Miller, the DCFS investigator, testified she was assigned to the case to investigate allegations of substance abuse, domestic violence, and Jerry C. living in the home. She spoke with L.U. at his school on October 28, 2022. L.U. was seven years old. He stated that they had just moved from Tennessee and he lived with his mother, brother, and sister. Jerry C. did not live with them. After speaking with L.U., Miller went to respondent's home and informed her Illinois had opened an investigation because of the Tennessee case involving domestic violence in the home. Respondent stated a child welfare case was proceeding in Tennessee, but she had been advised not to cooperate with them. Respondent refused to allow Miller into her home and told Miller not to speak to her children outside of her presence.
¶ 15 In her investigation, Miller received information that Jerry C. was living in Springfield at the same house number as respondent but on a nearby street. Miller also learned respondent previously lived in Arizona and had police involvement there due to drug and alcohol abuse and domestic violence incidents. Miller was informed respondent and Jerry C. fled Arizona to avoid police involvement.
¶ 16 On November 23, 2022, Miller was notified L.U. had told his biological father that Jerry C. was present in the home with them. On November 28, 2022, after school reconvened following Thanksgiving break, Miller spoke to both J.Z.-U. and L.U. J.Z.-U. initially stated Jerry C. was not living with them, but after talking for a while, he said, "yes, he is there," and that Jerry C. came with them when they moved to Illinois. J.Z.-U. stated they slept in a car for two or three nights on their way to Illinois. Miller asked J.Z.-U. if anyone told him not to tell the truth about whether Jerry C. lived with them and J.Z.-U. responded," 'Well, my mom and Jerry told me not to say anything, but that's not why I told you that. I told you because I wanted to.'" He also stated respondent "said it was okay if he didn't look at Jerry in the home." When Miller spoke with L.U., he also stated Jerry C. was in the home. Miller testified L.U. seemed scared and barely spoke above a whisper. After speaking with the minors, Miller spoke with her supervisor, and the decision was made to take protective custody of the minors on November 28, 2022.
¶ 17 On cross-examination, Miller acknowledged J.Z.-U. and L.U. both initially told her Jerry C. was not living with them. Miller never went to the address she discovered for Jerry C. near respondent's house in Springfield to check if he was living there. When Miller returned to respondent's house in December 2022 to introduce respondent to her caseworker, Miller searched the home and did not find any evidence of a man living there.
¶ 18 Miller asserted J.Z.-U. told her Jerry C. was mean when he drinks, and J.Z.-U. was scared when Jerry C. and respondent fight after they drink. Based on that testimony, the trial court asked for clarification on whether J.Z.-U. was speaking about more than just the one incident in Tennessee. Miller responded that J.Z.-U. expanded on the incident in Tennessee, but he also said they drink a lot and they fight a lot. Miller further testified she believed respondent had been in contact with Jerry C. because she admitted he was helping her financially. The State rested following Miller's testimony.
¶ 19 Respondent was recalled in her case-in-chief. Respondent testified she moved to Illinois at the end of September 2022 because she was no longer with Jerry C. and she had family in Illinois. She admitted the domestic violence incident occurred in Tennessee in September 2022, and she was willing to take the classes ordered by the Tennessee court. Respondent stated she completed a 16-hour online domestic violence class for nonoffenders in November 2022, before the minors were taken into protective custody. Respondent testified that Miller never asked to speak privately with any of her children and she believed she was cooperative with Miller. A nocontact order was put in place following the domestic violence incident in Tennessee. Respondent testified Jerry C. did not move to Illinois with her and the children, he was not living with them during the DCFS investigation in Illinois, and she did not have any contact with him until January 2023, after the minors were already in protective custody. He only deposited money directly into her bank account during that time. She began having contact with Jerry C. again in January 2023, and she had been living with him since February 2023. Respondent stated neither she nor Jerry C. drinks to excess, but "he is aggressive when he drinks Jameson."
¶ 20 Respondent also recalled Miller, who testified J.Z.-U. told her respondent drinks a lot. Miller acknowledged, however, that her case notes indicated J.Z.-U. told her at one point that respondent does not drink a lot and she is not mean when she drinks. Miller testified J.Z.-U. asserted he knows when respondent is drinking, and he got up and staggered to show how she acts.
¶ 21 Over respondent's objection, the trial court admitted People's exhibit No. 1, stating the court would "take it for what it is." The court noted the exhibit included certified copies of court orders and an unadjudicated petition from Tennessee. The amended petition for a restraining order filed on November 28, 2022, is included in the exhibit, and that petition provides the police description of the domestic violence incident that occurred at 12:50 a.m. on September 15, 2022. The amended petition for a restraining order also recites from caseworker Ashley Jackson's report.
¶ 22 Following the parties' arguments, the trial court found the State had proven by a preponderance of the evidence allegations 2 and 3 of the amended petitions for adjudication of wardship. The court found the statements of the children credible and stated it did "not find [respondent] to be credible." The matter was set for a dispositional hearing.
¶ 23 The dispositional hearing was held without a court reporter present to provide a complete record of the proceedings, but respondent has submitted an agreed bystander's report of the hearing in accordance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c) (eff. July 1, 2017). The bystander's report does not recite any evidence or testimony presented at the hearing held on June 21, 2023. The report summarizes the parties' arguments and recommendations at the dispositional hearing and states that DCFS caseworker Markeisha Alexander "submitted a report prior to the hearing" and answered the trial court's questions about whether J.Z.-U.'s father had been appropriately vetted by DCFS.
¶ 24 The trial court's dispositional order, however, stated the court "advised all parties present or their counsel of the factual contents and conclusions of the reports prepared for the use of the Court and considered by it" and "afforded fair opportunity to controvert them." The dispositional report, prepared by Alexander and filed with the court on June 20, 2023, indicated respondent had generally completed the services and tasks recommended in her integrated assessment, other than compliance with random drug screenings. Respondent failed to appear at two of the screenings and refused to take a drug test on the other two dates.
¶ 25 Jerry C. also completed some of the recommendations from the service plan. However, he had not yet started domestic violence counseling, although it was scheduled to start in June 2023. The dispositional report also stated Jerry C. was arrested for domestic battery involving bodily harm on January 28, 2023. The dispositional report recommended placement of custody and guardianship with DCFS with a goal of the minors returning home, but it also noted respondent and Jerry C. had "been working diligently in completing their services" and were "willing to do what is requested to have the children returned into their care."
¶ 26 Following the hearing, the trial court adjudged the minors wards of the court and placed them in the custody and guardianship of DCFS. The court found the parents were unfit, unable, or unwilling to have custody of the minors. The court noted respondent and Jerry C. were residing together and Jerry C. was just preparing to start domestic violence services. According to the bystander's report, based on the evidence of domestic violence, the court "needed to see that services were being cooperated with and utilized" and "to see a period of stability based upon the history of the family."
¶ 27 This appeal followed.
¶ 28 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 29 On appeal, respondent contends the trial court's adjudicatory and dispositional orders are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)) sets forth a two-step process for determining whether a minor should be removed from the parents' custody and made a ward of the court. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 18. The first step is the adjudicatory hearing, where the court considers only whether the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent. Id. ¶ 19. If the court determines a minor is abused, neglected, or dependent, it proceeds to the second step, the dispositional hearing. Id. ¶ 21 (citing 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2) (West 2010)). At the dispositional hearing, the court determines whether making the minors wards of the court is consistent with the health, safety, and best interests of the minors and the public. Id.
¶ 30 A. Adjudication of Neglect
¶ 31 Respondent contends the trial court found the minors' environment injurious to their welfare based essentially on the single incident of domestic violence in Tennessee. No additional evidence was presented showing ongoing domestic violence, other than the minors' uncorroborated hearsay statements. According to respondent, the court's finding of neglect cannot be based upon uncorroborated hearsay statements of a child. Respondent concludes that the court's finding of neglect based on a single proven incident of domestic abuse was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
¶ 32 In this case, the trial court found the State established allegations of neglect based on (1) domestic violence between respondent and Jerry C. and (2) respondent's substance abuse. 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2022). Section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act defines a neglected minor to include "any minor under 18 years of age *** whose environment is injurious to his or her welfare." Id. The term "injurious environment" is "an amorphous concept that cannot be defined with particularity." In re Arthur H., 212 Ill.2d 441, 463 (2004). However, an "injurious environment" generally includes the breach of a parent's duty to provide his or her children with a safe and nurturing shelter. Id. Neglect cases are "sui generis, and must be decided on the basis of their unique circumstances." Id.
¶ 33 The State bears the burden of proving allegations of abuse or neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, establishing the allegations are more probably true than not. In re Z.L., 2021 IL 126931, ¶ 61. A trial court's finding of neglect will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. A.P, 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 17. Under that standard, "the reviewing court gives deference to the trial court as the finder of fact because it is in the best position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the parties and the witnesses and has a degree of familiarity with the evidence that a reviewing court cannot possibly obtain." (Internal quotation marks omitted). In re J.V., 2018 IL App (1st) 171766, ¶ 222. A finding of neglect is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. Id. ¶ 221.
¶ 34 Section 2-18(4)(c) of the Juvenile Court Act provides that "[p]revious statements made by the minor relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect shall be admissible in evidence. However, no such statement, if uncorroborated and not subject to cross-examination, shall be sufficient in itself to support a finding of abuse or neglect." 705 ILCS 405/2-18(4)(c) (West 2022). In construing section 2-18(4)(c), our supreme court has stated that "[u]nder the plain language of the second sentence, a minor's hearsay statement is sufficient to support a finding of abuse or neglect where the statement either is subject to cross-examination or is corroborated by other evidence." In re A.P., 179 Ill.2d 184, 196 (1997). In this context, corroborating evidence is defined as follows:
"[C]orroborating evidence of the abuse or neglect requires there to be independent evidence which would support a logical and reasonable inference that the act of abuse or neglect described in the hearsay statement occurred. In essence, corroborating evidence is evidence that makes it more probable that a minor was abused or neglected. The form of corroboration will vary depending on the facts of each case and can include physical or circumstantial evidence." Id. at 199.
¶ 35 At the adjudicatory hearing, respondent admitted to the incident of domestic violence that occurred in Tennessee on September 15, 2022. Respondent acknowledged the minors were present and she and Jerry C. were intoxicated. Ashley Jackson testified that she spoke with J.Z.-U. a few days after the incident, and he stated Jerry C. pushed respondent through a door and she fell into a room where J.Z.-U. was watching his younger sister. J.Z.-U. also stated Jerry C. broke respondent's phone and watch during the fight. The incident resulted in Jerry C.'s arrest and the subsequent no-contact order with respondent and the minors.
¶ 36 Contrary to respondent's argument, the domestic violence incident in Tennessee was not the only evidence of domestic violence. The statements from J.Z.-U. also indicate domestic violence between respondent and Jerry C. was an ongoing issue. J.Z.-U. told Investigator Miller that Jerry C. was mean when he drinks, and J.Z.-U. stated he was scared when Jerry C. and respondent fight after they drink. Miller explained that J.Z.-U. was speaking about more than just the one incident in Tennessee. J.Z.-U. told Miller that respondent and Jerry C. drink a lot and they fight a lot.
¶ 37 J.Z.-U.'s statements were admissible under section 2-18(4)(c), and they provided support for the finding of neglect. The hearsay statements alleging ongoing domestic abuse were corroborated by respondent's admission of the domestic violence incident in Tennessee with the children present. The proven incident of domestic violence involving alcohol in Tennessee supports a reasonable inference that the ongoing domestic violence and alcohol abuse alleged in J.Z.-U.'s hearsay statements occurred. Additionally, respondent's testimony that Jerry C. "is aggressive when he drinks Jameson" suggests an ongoing issue with domestic violence and alcohol abuse.
¶ 38 We also note, however, that corroboration of J.Z.-U.'s hearsay statements was not necessary for the finding of neglect in this case because the statements were not offered, by themselves, as the sole support for that finding. See 705 ILCS 405/2-18(4)(c) (West 2022) (stating hearsay statements by a minor relating to allegations of neglect are admissible in evidence but are insufficient by themselves to support a finding of neglect if uncorroborated and not subject to cross-examination). In this case, the hearsay statements of the minors were only part of the evidence offered by the State in support of the finding of neglect. Those statements, taken together with the evidence of the domestic violence incident in Tennessee and respondent's admissions, indicate a continuing issue with domestic violence between respondent and Jerry C.
¶ 39 Importantly, while respondent asserts she was focused on protecting the children from Jerry C. following the incident in Tennessee, the evidence does not support her contention. Jackson testified that when she spoke with J.Z.-U. a few days after the incident, he stated Jerry C. was still living with them and they had been to a carnival together. J.Z.-U. told Miller that Jerry C. moved with them from Tennessee to Illinois and his" 'mom and Jerry told [him] not to say anything.'" L.U. also told Miller that Jerry C. was in the home, and he seemed scared and barely spoke above a whisper. Miller believed respondent was in contact with Jerry C. because he was helping her financially by depositing money into her bank account.
¶ 40 The State also presented evidence that respondent was not particularly cooperative with the investigators. Respondent refused to allow Jackson into her home to verify that Jerry C. was not there, even after being told Jackson would have to seek a restraining order against Jerry C. given the indications that he was still present in the home. Similarly, respondent refused to allow Miller into her home in Illinois and told Miller not to speak to her children without respondent present. While respondent claimed to be cooperative with the investigators and that Jerry C. did not live with them in Illinois, the trial court found respondent was not credible. A reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses. J.V., 2018 IL App (1st) 171766, ¶ 222.
¶ 41 Given the evidence, respondent's argument that she protected the minors from Jerry C. and the threat of domestic violence following the incident in Tennessee is not persuasive. The evidence shows respondent and the minors fled Tennessee after an investigation was opened there. The evidence also supports a finding that Jerry C. continued to live with respondent and the minors in Illinois, and the minors continued to be exposed to an injurious environment due to the possibility of domestic violence in the home. See Arthur H., 212 Ill.2d at 463 (stating an "injurious environment" generally includes the breach of a parent's duty to provide his or her children with a safe and nurturing shelter).
¶ 42 In sum, the trial court's finding of an injurious environment due to domestic violence is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and an opposite conclusion is not clearly evident. We note that the parties dispute whether this court may consider the contents of Peoples' exhibit No. 1 in reviewing the trial court's decision. We need not address those arguments because, even without Peoples' exhibit No. 1, the evidence was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the minors were subjected to an injurious environment.
¶ 43 The State is only required to prove a single ground of neglect. In re Faith B., 216 Ill.2d 1, 14 (2005). When the trial court has found a minor neglected on several grounds, we may affirm if any one of those bases may be upheld. Id. Accordingly, we need not consider whether the court erred in finding the minors neglected based on the third allegation of the amended petitions alleging an injurious environment due to substance abuse.
¶ 44 B. Dispositional Order
¶ 45 1. Forfeiture
¶ 46 Before addressing respondent's challenge to the dispositional order, we note that the State argues respondent forfeited her challenge to the dispositional order by failing to provide a sufficient record to review her claim. The State contends respondent's bystander's report does not contain any information about the testimony presented at the hearing and it does not even state whether the dispositional report was admitted into evidence. The State maintains respondent has failed to satisfy her burden as the appellant to present a sufficient record to support her claim of error.
¶ 47 Respondent replies that the bystander's report provides an accurate record of the hearing. According to respondent, no testimony was presented at the hearing but, as reflected in the bystander's report, the trial court gave the parties an opportunity to argue based on the contents of the dispositional report prepared specifically for the hearing. Respondent argues the court's ruling was based on the dispositional report and the record is sufficient for review.
¶ 48 As noted by the State, the bystander's report does not recite any evidence or testimony provided at the hearing, but it summarizes the parties' arguments and states caseworker Markeisha Alexander "submitted a report prior to the hearing." The dispositional order states the trial court "advised all parties present or their counsel of the factual contents and conclusions of the reports prepared for the use of the Court and considered by it" and "afforded fair opportunity to controvert them."
¶ 49 At the dispositional hearing, the trial court considers "all reports, whether or not the author testifies, which would assist the court in determining the proper disposition for the minor." In re L.M., 189 Ill.App.3d 392, 400 (1989); see 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2022) (stating all helpful evidence "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").
¶ 50 In this case, it is clear the trial court considered the dispositional report in making its decision. The dispositional report contains a review of the relevant background and facts necessary for the court's decision. We find the bystander's report, along with the dispositional report, provides a sufficient factual record to review the court's dispositional order. Thus, we will decide this issue on the merits.
¶ 51 2. Merits
¶ 52 Respondent contends the trial court's dispositional order granting custody and guardianship to DCFS is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Respondent maintains the State failed to prove she was unfit by a preponderance of the evidence. Although she acknowledges the incident in Tennessee involved domestic violence and intoxication, respondent claims she has engaged in services to eliminate any concern about her ability to care for the children. In fact, the dispositional report notes she has completed all required tasks and services, and Jerry C. has completed all required services other than a domestic violence class. Respondent concludes the court's dispositional order should be reversed given the stability and progress she has demonstrated.
¶ 53 At the dispositional hearing, the trial court determines whether the best interests of the minor and the public require making the minor a ward of the court. 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2022). The party requesting the finding must show by a preponderance of the evidence that a parent is unable to care for, protect, train, or discipline the child. In re Daniel G., 2021 IL App (1st) 210640, ¶ 58. The best interest of the child is the trial court's overriding concern in fashioning a dispositional order. In re M.P., 408 Ill.App.3d 1070, 1073 (2011). A trial court's dispositional order will not be disturbed on appeal unless its findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence or it abused its discretion by selecting an inappropriate dispositional order. In re A.S., 2014 IL App (3d) 130163, ¶ 21. A trial court's finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. In re D.F., 201 Ill.2d 476, 498 (2002).
¶ 54 In this case, the trial court's finding that respondent was unfit, unable, or unwilling to have custody of the minors is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court's findings of neglect were based on domestic violence between respondent and Jerry C. and substance abuse. The evidence showed respondent and Jerry C. continued to live together and Jerry C. had not yet started the recommended domestic violence counseling. We note that the dispositional report also states Jerry C. was arrested for domestic battery again in January 2023. By respondent's own admission, Jerry C. began living with her again in February 2023. Based on the history of domestic violence in the family, the court "needed to see that services were being cooperated with and utilized" and "to see a period of stability" before the minors could be returned.
¶ 55 Additionally, the evidence showed alcohol or substance abuse contributed to the domestic violence issue, and respondent had either refused or failed to appear for all of the random drug screenings. We agree that respondent has generally been cooperative following the removal of the minors and has made substantial progress toward completing the requirements for their return. The dispositional report notes respondent and Jerry C. had "been working diligently in completing their services" and were "willing to do what is requested to have the children returned into their care." Given the continuing concerns about domestic violence and substance abuse in the home, however, we believe the trial court's decision to require compliance with critical services and a period of stability was warranted. The opposite conclusion is not clearly evident in this case. Accordingly, we conclude the court's dispositional order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 56 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 57 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 58 Affirmed.