dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority and would affirm the decision of the trial court.
It is not the function of a reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Instead, our role is to review the findings of fact of the trial judge and determine whether the facts thus found justify the entry of the order. (In re Dependency of Bartha (1967), 87 Ill. App. 2d 263, 268, 230 N.E.2d 886.) Only where the trial court’s findings are palpably erroneous and contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence should the order be disturbed on appeal. Winslow v. Lewis (1957), 15 Ill. App. 2d 65, 76, 144 N.E.2d 782.
The testimony adduced at the hearing indicated that appellant had committed acts of prostitution on several occasions; had frequently placed her child in the care of friends for long periods of time; was an addict; had used heroin while ostensibly detoxifying on methadone; and was having mental problems which caused her to admit herself or be admitted by her mother to a mental health facility on two occasions. At one time, the minor was taken from appellant’s custody (and appellant was arrested) when cigarette burns were found on the soles of her feet. Prior to being removed from the custody of her mother in October 1973, she had been found wandering in the streets late at night, after being placed in the care of her great-grandmother who was 86 years old. In addition, a clinicial psychologist testified that the child showed signs of disturbance, was very insecure and suffering from inadequate parenting.
While it is true that appellant denied much of the testimony provided by the friends to whom she had often entrusted her child, it is clear that the trial court chose not to believe the appellant. Where truth lies, in any debatable set of circumstances, is a matter peculiarly for the trier of fact. (People v. Williams (1966), 75 Ill. App. 2d 50,59,221 N.E.2d 48.) The trial court, having heard and observed the witnesses, was in a superior position to judge their credibility and weigh the evidence. (In the Interest of Garmon (1972), 4 Ill. App. 3d 391, 395, 280 N.E.2d 19.) This is particularly significant where the court must determine whether a minor has been neglected.
The State may only interfere with the parental right to custody when that right has been forfeited by the parents, either through their misconduct, or their inability to provide proper care for their children. (Petition of Breger v. Seymour (1966), 74 Ill. App. 2d 197, 219 N.E.2d 265.) The experienced trial judge here carefully considered the matter and found that the child was neglected. This court should not substitute its judgment where, as here, the decision is not contrary to the weight of the evidence. I would affirm the order.