In re C.S.

2023 IL App (5th) 230128-U
NOTICE
NOTICE
Decision filed 07/18/23. The
This order was filed under
text of this decision may be NOS. 5-23-0128, 5-23-0129, 5-23-0130 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 C.S., L.S., and A.S., Minors ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) Vermilion County.
)
Petitioner-Appellee, )
)
v. ) Nos. 22-JA-84, 22-JA-85,
) 22-JA-86
)
Candice S., ) Honorable
) Robert E. McIntire,
Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE BARBERIS delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Boie and Justice Vaughan concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The circuit court’s dispositional order finding the minor children neglected was not
against the manifest weight of the evidence. Moreover, the court did not err by
placing guardianship with Christine and James K.

¶2 This appeal arises from the dispositional order of the circuit court of Vermilion County

finding C.S. (22-JA-84), L.S. (22-JA-85), and A.S. (22-JA-86) neglected. 1 Respondent-mother

filed a timely notice of appeal in each case, and the cases were consolidated for our review. We

affirm.

1
The records in each consolidated case are nearly identical. For purposes of this order, any factual
information derives from the record in 22-JA-84.
1
¶3 I. Background

¶4 We limit our recitation of the facts to those necessary for an adequate understanding of the

case and resolution of the issue presented before us on appeal. We will recite additional facts in

the analysis section as needed to address respondent-mother’s specific arguments.

¶5 On July 8, 2022, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship regarding all three

children. The petition alleged four counts of neglect. Count I alleged neglect pursuant to section

2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)), in that

the minors’ environment was injurious to their welfare due to respondent-mother’s substance

abuse. Count II alleged the same due to father’s substance abuse. 2 Count III alleged neglect

pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Act, in that the environment was injurious to the minors’

welfare where the parents engaged in domestic violence in front of the minors, placing them in

physical and emotional danger of harm. The final count alleged neglect pursuant to section 2-

3(1)(a) of the Act (id. § 2-3(1)(a)), in that the parents failed to provide the proper and necessary

support, education, or other remedial care required for the minors’ welfare.

¶6 On July 8, 2022, the circuit court held a shelter care hearing. The State presented the

testimony of Jamie Russell, a caseworker with the Illinois Department of Children and Family

Services (DCFS). Russell testified that he was the investigator appointed to the case, and an initial

report regarding the minor children came in on June 2, 2022. According to the report, a domestic

altercation occurred between respondent-mother and the father in front of the children, where

allegedly father punched respondent-mother in the nose while riding in a vehicle.

¶7 A second report came on June 3, 2022. The second report raised concerns about the

children lacking housing and food, and also indicated that the family was kicked out of a hotel

2
Father is not a party to the instant appeal. Father pursued his own appeal in No. 5-23-0131.
2
with nowhere to go. According to the report, the children “were filthy” and lacking hygiene. The

investigator on call, Meredith Brooks, facilitated the family to stay in a hotel and move to a shelter.

However, mother left the hotel and stopped responding to investigators.

¶8 A third and final report came on June 30, 2022. According to the report, a second domestic

violence incident occurred between respondent-mother and father, wherein father battered

respondent-mother and was arrested. The children were present during the altercation. Russell met

with respondent-mother, who confirmed there was a domestic dispute. Russell testified that there

were concerns regarding methamphetamine use by both respondent-mother and father. Russell

asked respondent-mother to complete a drug drop on June 2, 2022, which respondent-mother

missed.

¶9 Russell testified that he consulted with the state’s attorney’s office, and they created a plan

to allow the children to return to their former foster family, James and Christine K., in

Veedersburg, Indiana. Respondent-mother was not amenable to assistance from investigators.

Russell took protective custody of the children on July 6, 2022. Russell noted that when protective

custody was taken, C.S. was “clean,” but “the other two children were very dirty.” Respondent-

mother was combative with investigators and claimed that Russell “took the children illegally.”

C.S. advised Russell that there were domestic disputes wherein father hit respondent-mother. C.S.

advised Russell that “his dad made money by making chemicals out at the home of Tara Ray.”

Russell testified that respondent-mother had “very little” clothing for the children. A.S. did not

have pants. Russell testified that the parents had previous DCFS involvement, wherein the children

were previously in protective custody. Both respondent-mother and father had prior arrests for

methamphetamine use.

3
¶ 10 Russell additionally testified that, at the time of the shelter care hearing, the children were

placed in three separate homes. The preference of DCFS was to keep the children together in their

prior foster placement in Indiana. Russell requested that temporary custody of all three children be

granted to the K. family in Indiana, through an interstate compact, 3 who cared for them during

their prior protective care.

¶ 11 The circuit court granted protective custody and placed temporary custody with the K.

family. The court noted that, although it was an “unusual situation” placing the children outside of

the state, it was “important” to keep the children together and to provide “continuity with people

that they have known from the past.”

¶ 12 On August 30, 2022, DCFS filed a family service plan with the circuit court. The service

plan indicated that the children were previously in care in Vermilion County (2018-JA-31-33).

The service plan indicated that respondent-mother remained with father, despite the allegations of

domestic abuse. Respondent-mother had a substantial criminal history including

methamphetamine delivery, possession of methamphetamine, assault, and dangerous drugs. The

service plan recommended a goal of adoption, where the children resided with a family that was

willing to provide permanency for them.

¶ 13 On November 10, 2022, the circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing. Roosevelt Fuentes,

a probation officer for Vermilion County, testified. Fuentes facilitated drug drops for respondent-

mother and father. On September 2, 2022, Fuentes was asked to do a drug drop for father. As

Fuentes walked father to do the drop, father took a “left down the stairs and ended up leaving the

courthouse.” Tara Woodard, another probation officer for Vermilion County, was with Fuentes

3
“Interstate compact” refers to the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children Act, which
facilitates cooperation between states for the interstate placement of children. 45 ILCS 15/0.01 et seq. (West
2020).
4
during this incident. Woodward facilitated a drug drop for respondent-mother. Respondent-mother

also left the courthouse and ignored Woodard and Fuentes. Neither parent complied with a drug

drop on September 2, 2022, as ordered by the court.

¶ 14 Kaitlyn Swisher, an officer with the Danville Police Department, testified. On June 1, 2022,

Swisher was dispatched to the Candle Lite Motel in Danville for a domestic disturbance. Upon

arrival, Swisher observed respondent-mother, who had swelling and bruising to her nose, with

three juveniles. Respondent-mother told Swisher that she could not find father, so she went looking

for him. Respondent-mother found father and another woman in father’s truck south of Rossville.

Respondent-mother’s vehicle subsequently got stuck, with all three children inside. Respondent-

mother called father to come pick them up. Father came to pick them up, and respondent-mother

and father began to argue. Respondent-mother acknowledged that she “hit” father “in the right side

of his face” and father then “back handed her into the nose, causing the bruising and swelling.”

The three children were in the vehicle at that time. Swisher observed respondent-mother’s injuries.

¶ 15 Scott Showers, an officer with the Danville Police Department, testified. Showers testified

that on June 30, 2022, he was dispatched to the Candle Lite Motel for a domestic dispute. Showers

went to the motel room door, and respondent-mother opened the door. Father was present in the

room wearing only a towel. Respondent-mother advised Showers that she and father had a verbal

argument which turned physical. Respondent-mother advised Showers that father “hit her multiple

times with open and closed hands, and then also spit on her.” Showers observed spit in respondent-

mother’s hair and visible marks on her face. Showers testified that all three children were present

in the motel room. Showers placed father under arrest for domestic battery. Showers contacted

DCFS.

5
¶ 16 Russell also testified consistently with his shelter care hearing testimony. Meredith Brooks

testified. Brooks was the investigator on the second report on June 3, 2022. Brooks received a

hotline call that respondent-mother and the children were kicked out of their motel, had nowhere

to go, and the children were “filthy,” with matted hair, and smelled of urine. The hotline caller

advised that respondent-mother was “yelling about not having any money, and that they were

hungry.” Brooks contacted respondent-mother the next day. Brooks observed that respondent-

mother had a black eye. Brooks attempted with no luck to secure respondent-mother and the

children a space in a shelter. Brooks assisted respondent-mother in staying at a hotel for the

weekend.

¶ 17 Brooks checked on respondent-mother the next day and took pizza for the children.

Respondent-mother advised Brooks that she and father “reconciled” and he “stopped by,” “gave

her back her phone,” and “put some money on her cash app.” Brooks advised respondent-mother

that she still needed to come talk with her on Monday. Following the visit, respondent-mother

dropped contact with Brooks altogether.

¶ 18 Following argument from the parties, the circuit court found all three children neglected

“in an environment injurious to their welfare.” The court based this finding upon the “multiple

instances of domestic violence between the parents in the presence of the children, as well as the

failure to provide necessary support, or other remedial care for the children’s welfare.” Thus, the

court found the State proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, counts III and IV of the petitions

for each child. The court did, however, find the State failed to prove counts I and II.

¶ 19 Following the hearing, respondent-mother and father submitted drug drops. Respondent-

mother’s results were negative.

6
¶ 20 On December 30, 2022, DCFS filed a dispositional hearing report with the circuit court.

The report noted that respondent-mother was not cooperative with DCFS. The report indicated that

respondent-mother responded to phone calls and text messages but failed to complete all drug

drops consistently. Respondent-mother failed to maintain stable housing and reported herself

homeless. Respondent-mother refused to go to a shelter. Respondent-mother did not have

employment. In addition, respondent-mother failed drug drops on October 4, 2022, October 7,

2022, November 18, 2022 (positive for amphetamines/methamphetamine and THC), November

29, 2022, December 14, 2022, and December 21, 2022. Respondent-mother failed to attend her

scheduled assessment for substance abuse. Similarly, respondent-mother failed to appear for her

domestic violence assessment.

¶ 21 The report also noted numerous police reports for domestic disturbances that occurred on

October 4, 2021, October 18, 2021, October 24, 2021, February 26, 2021, June 1, 2021, and March

30, 2021. The report additionally noted that both parents had an extensive prior indicated history

with the children, who previously were in care.

¶ 22 On February 22, 2023, DCFS filed a dispositional hearing report with the circuit court. The

report indicated that both parents took steps to initiate the partner abuse intervention program.

However, neither parent participated in substance abuse programming nor random drug drops,

specifically failing to attend six requests to complete drops. Neither parent met with their

caseworker on a weekly basis as required. The report indicated that respondent-mother and father

were homeless and living in a motel on DCFS funds.

¶ 23 The service plan filed with the dispositional hearing report indicated that respondent-

mother was unsatisfactory for failing to enroll in substance abuse treatment programs and failing

to complete random drug drops. The service plan marked respondent-mother unsatisfactory for

7
failing to keep appointments and attending scheduled assessments or meetings with caseworkers.

Respondent-mother was also unsatisfactory for acquiring housing or employment, where

respondent-mother indicated that she was homeless.

¶ 24 On February 23, 2023, the circuit court held a dispositional hearing. Christine K., the

temporary custodian of the children, testified. Christine testified that she and her husband lived in

Indiana. If DCFS was awarded guardianship, the children would be removed from her home in

Indiana to be placed in Illinois. Christine testified that the children have a long and documented

history of instability, and she provides them with a stable home environment. Christine constituted

a family placement, where the father of the children is her nephew. Christine testified that the

children received therapy services to work through their trauma and received appropriate mental

health services in her care. Christine testified that the children were in her care from June or July

of 2019 until May of 2020. At that time, an interstate compact was done to place the children with

her. Christine also testified that she and her husband were financially able to take care of the

children without a DCFS subsidy. Both Christine and her husband had stable employment.

¶ 25 Moreover, Christine testified that C.S. attended school and did well “grade-wise.” C.S.,

however, exhibited emotional outbursts where “he would hit himself in the face, on his body,

scratch, [and] scream.” His care team, including Christine, therapists, and teachers, “are working

with that.” A.S. advised Christine that “mommy would hit her.” A.S. attended therapy for

behaviors such as hitting herself. L.S. attended play-based therapy.

¶ 26 Next, James K. testified. James is Christine’s husband. James testified that his wife’s

testimony was accurate, and that he was willing and able to serve as guardian for the children.

¶ 27 On March 2, 2023, the circuit court continued the dispositional hearing. Father testified

that he “was denied visitation” with the children. He testified that he had no contact with the

8
children since they went into care. Father testified that he was willing to complete services in order

to “get them back.” Father testified that he did not have a residence and “bounced around.” Father

testified that there was never physical violence in the home. Father suggested that he had family

in Illinois that would be suitable foster parents for the children. He testified that he had siblings

that “would help out.”

¶ 28 After considering the evidence, the circuit court found both parents unfit and unable to care

for the children. Considering the best interests of the children, the court found that it was “not in

the best interest of these children” to “take them away from the placement that they’ve been in for

frankly a pretty decent part of their lives, quite possibly have them split up.” The court noted that

if DCFS took custody of the children, there was “a possibility, though that’s not crucial to my

decision, but there is a possibility that [C.S.] would have to go to a specialized foster home, and

the other two to a regular one.” The court noted that such a result might not be a “good path to

permanency” for the children. The court noted that the children were “in a home that is able to

address their needs, where they, I think, feel safe and stable.” Thus, the court determined that it

would be “immensely disruptive for these children in this particular instance to remove them from

their current temporary guardians” and place them with DCFS. As such, the court placed all three

children with the foster parents, Christine and James K.

¶ 29 The circuit court noted that it did not terminate parental rights. Although the parents lost

custody and guardianship, they “still have residual parental rights.” The court encouraged the

parents to seek services for substance abuse and domestic violence.

¶ 30 The same day, the circuit court entered a dispositional order. Specifically, the court noted

that it was not consistent with the health, welfare, and safety of the children nor in their best

interests to be made minor wards of the court. The court found both mother and father unfit and

9
unable to care for the children. Specifically, to respondent-mother, the court found “her need to

evidence sobriety, complete substance abuse treatment, domestic violence education, parenting

education, and establish and maintain a safe and appropriate home for her children” as reasoning

why placement with her was contrary to the health, safety, and best interests of the children. As to

father, the court found him unfit, unable, and unwilling, where father demonstrated a “need to

evidence sobriety, complete substance abuse treatment, domestic violence education, parenting

education, and establish and maintain a safe and appropriate home for the children.” The court

placed custody and guardianship with James and Christine K.

¶ 31 The circuit court entered an order to close the proceedings, where legal custody and

guardianship was granted to Christine and James K., who lived in Indiana.

¶ 32 This appeal followed.

¶ 33 II. Analysis

¶ 34 Respondent-mother argues that the circuit court erred by finding the children neglected and

granting their permanent custody and guardianship to James and Christine K. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

¶ 35 A. Finding of Neglect

¶ 36 First, respondent-mother argues that the circuit court erred by finding C.S., L.S., and A.S.

neglected children.4 For the reasons that follow, we disagree.

¶ 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

4
We note that the notice of appeal in this case indicated respondent-mother was appealing only the
dispositional order. However, an adjudicatory order is generally not considered a final appealable order and
is a step in the procedural progression leading the to the dispositional order. In re Ay. D., 2020 IL App (3d)
200056, ¶ 37. Accordingly, the dispositional order—which is a final judgment appealable as of right—is
the proper vehicle to appeal a finding of abuse or neglect. Id.
10
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. In re Arthur H., 212

Ill. 2d 441, 462 (2004); 705 ILCS 405/2-21(1) (West 2020). If the court determines that the minor

is abused, neglected, or dependent, it holds a dispositional hearing to determine whether it is in the

best interests of the minor and the public for the minor to become a ward of the court. In re D.A.,

2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 13; 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2) (West 2020).

¶ 38 Section 2-3(1)(b) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)) defines a neglected

minor to include any minor under 18 years of age whose environment is injurious to his or her

welfare. Neglect based on an “injurious environment” is not readily susceptible to definition. In re

J.P., 331 Ill. App. 3d 220, 234 (2002). However, neglect has generally been described as the failure

to exercise the care that circumstances justly demand and encompasses willful and unintentional

disregard of parental duty. Id. at 235. Cases involving the adjudication of neglect and wardship are

sui generis, and each case must ultimately be decided on the basis of its own particular facts. In re

Edricka C., 276 Ill. App. 3d 18, 25 (1995).

¶ 39 The State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the child is

abused, neglected, or dependent. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 13. A preponderance of

the evidence is the amount of evidence that leads a trier of fact to find that the fact at issue is more

probable than not. In re J.P., 331 Ill. App. 3d at 234. A trial court’s determination of neglect based

on an injurious environment will not be reversed unless it is against the manifest weight of the

evidence. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 14. A finding is against the manifest weight of

the evidence if opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the determination is unreasonable,

arbitrary, or not based on the presented evidence. Id.

11
¶ 40 In the case before us, the circuit court considered significant evidence to support its finding

of neglect. At the November 10, 2022, adjudicatory hearing, Swisher, an officer with the Danville

Police Department, testified. Swisher was dispatched to the Candle Lite Motel in Danville for a

domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, Swisher observed respondent-mother, who had swelling and

bruising to her nose, with three juveniles. Respondent-mother advised Swisher that she and father

had a domestic dispute, and the three children were in the vehicle at that time. Swisher observed

respondent-mother’s injuries.

¶ 41 Additionally, Showers, an officer with the Danville Police Department, testified. Showers

testified that on June 30, 2022, he was dispatched to the Candle Lite Motel for a domestic dispute.

Showers went to the motel room door, and respondent-mother opened the door. Father was present

in the room wearing only a towel. Respondent-mother advised Showers that she and father had a

verbal argument which turned physical. Respondent-mother advised Showers that father “hit her

multiple times with open and closed hands, and then also spit on her.” Showers observed spit in

respondent-mother’s hair and visible marks on her face. Showers testified that all three children

were present in the motel room. Showers placed father under arrest for domestic battery. Showers

contacted DCFS.

¶ 42 The circuit court heard testimony from Brooks, the investigator on the second report on

June 3, 2022. Brooks received a hotline call that respondent-mother and the children were kicked

out of their motel, had nowhere to go, and the children were “filthy,” with matted hair, and smelled

of urine. The hotline caller advised that respondent-mother was “yelling about not having any

money, and that they were hungry.” Brooks contacted respondent-mother the next day. Brooks

observed that respondent-mother had a black eye. Brooks attempted with no luck to secure

12
respondent-mother and the children a space in a shelter. Brooks assisted respondent-mother in

staying at a hotel for the weekend.

¶ 43 Brooks checked on respondent-mother the next day and took pizza for the children.

Respondent-mother advised Brooks that she and father “reconciled” and he “stopped by,” “gave

her back her phone,” and “put some money on her cash app.” Brooks advised respondent-mother

that she still needed to come talk with her on Monday. Following the visit, respondent-mother

dropped contact with Brooks altogether.

¶ 44 Following argument from the parties, the circuit court found all three children neglected

“in an environment injurious to their welfare.” The court based this finding upon the “multiple

instances of domestic violence between the parents in the presence of the children, as well as the

failure to provide necessary support, or other remedial care for the children’s welfare.” Thus, the

court found the State proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, counts III and IV of the petitions

for each child. Considering the totality of this evidence, we find that the circuit court’s finding of

neglect based on an injurious environment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

As such, we find no error with the circuit court’s order adjudicating the minors neglected.

¶ 45 B. Unfitness

¶ 46 Next, although respondent-mother does not explicitly raise an argument regarding the

circuit court’s dispositional “unfit” finding, we construe her brief to raise the issue and consider

whether the finding of dispositional “unfit” was supported by the record.

¶ 47 The proceedings in this matter are governed by the Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West

2020)), which provides a systematic framework for determining when a minor child may be

removed from his or her parents and made a ward of the State. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 18.

First, the circuit court must make a finding of abuse, neglect, or dependence regarding the child.

13
705 ILCS 405/2-21 (West 2020). If the circuit court finds a child is neglected, then the circuit court

conducts a dispositional hearing at which the “court shall determine whether it is consistent with

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

court.” Id. § 2-21(2). When a minor is made a ward of the court, the circuit court must also

determine the proper disposition that best serves the health, safety, and interest of the minor child

and the public. Id. § 2-22. A proper disposition may include the removal of the minor child from

the custody of his or her parent if the court determines that the parent is unfit, unable, or unwilling,

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

the minor child, and that the health, safety, and best interest of the minor would be jeopardized if

the minor child remained in the custody of his or her parent. Id. §§ 2-23, 2-27.

¶ 48 “[A] proceeding seeking to divest a parent of custody and guardianship following a finding

of abuse or neglect and a proceeding seeking the termination of parental rights *** are different,

and the stringency of the requisite ‘unfitness’ as it relates to each proceeding is also different.”

In re A.R., 2022 IL App (3d) 210346, ¶ 17. Where the State is not seeking to terminate the parental

rights of a respondent, “the State need only prove respondent unfit under the ordinary meaning of

that term.” Id.

¶ 49 A circuit court’s finding at a dispositional hearing will only be reversed if the findings of

fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence or the circuit court committed an abuse of

discretion by selecting an inappropriate dispositional order. In re J.W., 386 Ill. App. 3d 847, 856

(2008). A circuit court’s finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite

conclusion is clearly evident or where its finding is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the

evidence presented. In re Al. S., 2017 IL App (4th) 160737, ¶ 41. Further, wide discretion is vested

in the circuit court judge to an even greater degree in child custody cases than any ordinary appeal

14
to which the familiar manifest weight principle is applied. In re Martin, 31 Ill. App. 3d 288, 293

(1975).

¶ 50 In the case before us, the circuit court considered evidence which demonstrated that

respondent-mother remained in contact with father, despite the allegations of domestic abuse.

Respondent-mother had a substantial criminal history, and the children were previously in care.

Respondent-mother was not cooperative with DCFS, specifically where she failed to complete all

drug drops consistently, failed to maintain stable housing, and reported herself homeless.

Respondent-mother refused to go to a shelter. Respondent-mother did not have employment.

Respondent-mother failed to attend her scheduled assessment for substance abuse. Similarly,

respondent-mother failed to appear for her domestic violence assessment. The circuit court heard

evidence of numerous police reports for domestic disturbances. This evidence was more than

sufficient for the circuit court to find respondent-mother unfit.

¶ 51 Therefore, the circuit court’s finding that respondent-mother was unable and unfit to care

for the three minor children was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 52 C. Guardianship Order

¶ 53 Finally, respondent-mother argues that the circuit court erred by granting custody and

guardianship to James and Christine K. Specifically, respondent-mother contends that custody and

guardianship should have been placed with DCFS. The State responds that it is in the children’s

best interest that they stay in the custody of James and Christine K. For the reasons that follow,

we agree with the State.

¶ 54 “This court must exercise its judgment and either approve, and therefore allow, the

placement or disapprove, and therefore disallow, the placement” of the children with an out-of-

state family. In re Q.P., 2022 IL App (1st) 220354, ¶ 20. “This exercise of judgment must give

15
precedence to the child’s best interest ***.” Id. When determining the child’s best interests, the

circuit court is required to consider, in the context of the child’s age and developmental needs, the

following:

“(a) the physical safety and welfare of the child, including food, shelter,

health, and clothing;

(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;

(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 and with siblings and

other relatives;

(h) the uniqueness of every family and child;

(i) the risks attendant to entering and being in substitute care; and

16
 (j) the preferences of the persons available to care for the child.” 705 ILCS

405/1-3(4.05) (West 2020).

¶ 55 “While all of the above-cited factors must be considered, no factor is dispositive.” In re

Austin W., 214 Ill. 2d 31, 50 (2005). Other important factors include “ ‘the nature and length of

the child’s relationship with the present caretaker’ and the effect that a change of placement would

have upon the emotional and psychological well-being of the child.” Id. (quoting In re Violetta B.,

210 Ill. App. 3d 521, 534 (1991)). The circuit court is not required to articulate any specific

rationale for its decision, and on review we may affirm the circuit court’s decision without relying

on any basis used by the circuit court. In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 883, 893 (2004).

¶ 56 As an initial matter, we note that respondent-mother contends that there “were relative

placement options in Illinois that would provide a familiar home for the children.” At the

dispositional hearing, father testified that he had “several” relatives in Illinois. Specifically, father

testified as follows:

“I believe any my siblings would—if they were approached within the idea that would
work between all of them, I believe my siblings would help out. My sister, Miranda, in
particular, has helped before. I don’t think that she—not on a permanent basis. She would
play her role as a family member and step up where needed. So long as I’m doing what I
need to do to be moving in the right direction, yes, I believe my family would assist in, you
know, providing care for the kids.”

Father continued:

“They were with my sister, Miranda, but I also believe even my brothers, I believe my
brother, Joe, and my brother, Allen, would also help out with the boys.”

¶ 57 The State notes that father’s testimony regarding family placement in Illinois was “filled

with qualifiers and contingencies.” We agree.

¶ 58 Here, the testimony established that the K. family attended to the physical safety and

welfare of the children, including providing them with food, shelter, health, and clothing. The

17
evidence adduced demonstrated that the K. family aided in the development of the children by

ensuring their mental health was addressed through therapy services. Additionally, Christine K. is

the paternal great-aunt of the children, and able to foster the children’s background and ties,

including familial, cultural, and religious. Moreover, the three children remained together in the

K. home. The children attended school, with the youngest child beginning in the fall, and C.S.

received good grades. The evidence established that the children felt love and attachment from

Christine and James K. The K. home was familiar to the children, where their initial DCFS

placement in a prior case resulted in foster placement with the K. family. As such, continued

placement with them was the least disruptive placement, particularly where, as the circuit court

noted, placement in Illinois could result in the children being split among foster homes.

¶ 59 Given all circumstances in the present case, we cannot conclude that the circuit court erred

by placing guardianship with Christine and James K.

¶ 60 III. Conclusion

¶ 61 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 62 Affirmed.

18