Background
G.H. III was hospitalized three times before his first birthday for growth faltering caused by chronic malnutrition. He gained weight when properly fed in the hospital, but later lost weight at home. A DCFS caseworker observed his mother, Thelma B., improperly prepare formula and struggle to recognize his hunger and satiety cues.
The State sought wardship, and the circuit court found G.H. neglected. At disposition, evidence showed that G.H. had gained weight in foster care and was eating table foods, while Thelma had completed parenting classes, begun individualized coaching, attended medical appointments, and engaged in services. But her contact with G.H. remained supervised, and her parenting coach sought additional sessions before recommending unsupervised visits.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the dispositional order finding Thelma currently unable to parent G.H., making him a ward of the court, and placing him in DCFS custody. The finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Although the formula-related risk had diminished because G.H. was eating table foods, the court held that the evidence supported an ongoing, child-specific risk: G.H. remained nonverbal, and Thelma had difficulty reading and responding to his nonverbal cues. The court could reasonably give that risk greater weight than her service participation, progress, and lack of neglect concerns involving her older children.
Key Takeaways
- A dispositional finding of parental inability turns on the parent’s present ability to safely care for the particular child.
- Improvement in services and parenting education does not require a finding of present ability when evidence supports an ongoing safety risk.
- Evidence concerning other children may be relevant, but it carries less weight than evidence about the child at issue.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that an appellate court will defer to a trial court’s assessment of conflicting evidence under manifest-weight review. A risk may remain sufficiently current for disposition even after the immediate condition that prompted intervention has improved.
Justice Wilson specially concurred, emphasizing that the Juvenile Court Act requires the court first to determine present parental ability and only then to use the child’s best interests in selecting the appropriate placement and reunification plan.