{ "id": 5783428, "name": "In re M.B., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellant v. M.B., a Minor, Respondent-Appellant (Marion Bo. et al., Respondents-Appellees))", "name_abbreviation": "People v. M.B.", "decision_date": "1992-09-18", "docket_number": "No. 1-90-0854", "first_page": "352", "last_page": "382", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "235 Ill. App. 3d 352" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "571 N.E.2d 905", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 Ill. App. 3d 849", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2599999 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "879" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/212/0849-01" ] }, { "cite": "566 N.E.2d 1345", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "142 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3236934 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/142/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "549 N.E.2d 834", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 Ill. App. 3d 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2496652 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "80" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/193/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "537 N.E.2d 967", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 Ill. App. 3d 126", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2619368 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "133" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/182/0126-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 N.E.2d 47", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 Ill. App. 3d 355", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3418836 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "361-62" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/57/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "436 N.E.2d 611", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 Ill. App. 3d 1025", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3035314 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1030-33" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/106/1025-01" ] }, { "cite": "574 N.E.2d 659", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 Ill. 2d 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5592093 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "432" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/143/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "527 N.E.2d 474", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 Ill. App. 3d 218", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3479142 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "223-24" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/173/0218-01" ] }, { "cite": "531 N.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "176 Ill. App. 3d 840", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3588307 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "846" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/176/0840-01" ] }, { "cite": "584 N.E.2d 385", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 Ill. App. 3d 744", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5263327 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "754" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/222/0744-01" ] }, { "cite": "499 N.E.2d 1381", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "114 Ill. 2d 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5542740 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "221" }, { "page": "221" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/114/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "370 N.E.2d 103", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 Ill. App. 3d 762", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3403429 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "765" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/54/0762-01" ] }, { "cite": "434 N.E.2d 500", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 Ill. App. 3d 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5469879 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "451" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/105/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "420 N.E.2d 147", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 Ill. 2d 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3045717 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "441" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/84/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "551 N.E.2d 343", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 Ill. App. 3d 721", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8499187 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "726" }, { "page": "725" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/194/0721-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 N.E.2d 834", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 Ill. App. 3d 1033", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2640520 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1034-35" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/42/1033-01" ] }, { "cite": "548 N.E.2d 518", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 Ill. App. 3d 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2505503 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "509" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/192/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 N.E.2d 673", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 Ill. 2d 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5358530 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "144-45" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/27/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "280 N.E.2d 291", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 Ill. App. 3d 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2916855 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "32" }, { "page": "32" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/4/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "578 N.E.2d 149", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 Ill. App. 3d 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8498328 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "107" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/218/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 N.E.2d 549", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 Ill. 2d 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5490191 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "112" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/77/0108-01" ] }, { "cite": "449 N.E.2d 812", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ill. 2d 159", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3114753 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "165" }, { "page": "165" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/96/0159-01" ] }, { "cite": "578 N.E.2d 269", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 Ill. App. 3d 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8498771 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "380" }, { "page": "380" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/218/0374-01" ] }, { "cite": "463 N.E.2d 955", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 Ill. App. 3d 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3430086 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/124/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "551 N.E.2d 357", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 Ill. App. 3d 686", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8499162 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "691" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/194/0686-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 2043, "char_count": 75139, "ocr_confidence": 0.756, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.822274777863061e-08, "percentile": 0.4977473590159117 }, "sha256": "d6d72e8a734762ed6c532fe83e6f307025c1b196a72842e6ceb17e66777fdad8", "simhash": "1:f76bd180d8f06740", "word_count": 13080 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:52:21.957372+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re M.B., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellant v. M.B., a Minor, Respondent-Appellant (Marion Bo. et al., Respondents-Appellees))." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE GORDON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe public guardian, on behalf of M.B., a minor, appeals from an order of the circuit court which granted the motions of M.B.\u2019s parents, Marion Bo. and Annie Bo., to dismiss the proceedings with prejudice. In granting the motions, the circuit court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and it required that M.B. be returned to the custody of his parents. This appeal also extends to an earlier order of the circuit court which granted the petition of the parents pursuant to section 2 \u2014 1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 1401) to vacate a finding of neglect, an adjudication of M.B.\u2019s wardship, and an order appointing Corine B. as the legal guardian of the child. On appeal, the public guardian contends, inter alia, that the circuit court erred in dismissing the proceedings and that the resultant restoration of M.B. to the custody of his parents was contrary to the child\u2019s best interests. The State and Corine B., formerly M.B.\u2019s legal guardian, have joined in the public guardian\u2019s appeal.\nThe public defender of Cook County represented Corine B. in the circuit court. On appeal, however, the public defender inadvertently filed a brief on behalf of M.B.\u2019s parents, leaving Corine B. without representation. Pursuant to a special hearing and without objection, we granted the public defender leave to withdraw its brief and itself from this appeal to avoid a conflict of interest, and we appointed separate private counsel to represent M.B.\u2019s parents and Corine B. As we stated earlier, the latter has joined in the public guardian\u2019s appeal. On March 26, 1992, M.B.\u2019s father, Marion Bo., addressed a letter to this court advising the court that he would terminate his participation in this appeal and not \u201cprolong any legal attempts to maintain the guardianship\u201d of his son. At the foregoing special hearing, the father appeared in person and was given leave to withdraw his letter without prejudice.\nM.B. was born on October 25, 1977. He is not related to Corine B., and she is not related to his parents. On April 10, 1981, when he was 3\u00bd years old, the Illinois Department of Public Aid filed a petition for adjudication of his wardship. The provisions of the petition are the basis for a finding by Judge Peter F. Costa that Corine B. perpetrated a fraud ab initio in this matter. The petition listed M.B.\u2019s mother as \u201cAnn B.\u201d and her address as \u201cunknown,\u201d it listed M.B.\u2019s father as \u201cto all whom it may concern\u201d and the father\u2019s address as \u201cunknown,\u201d and it listed M.B.\u2019s custodian as Corine B. of South Parnell Avenue in Chicago. The petition listed further that M.B. resided at the South Parnell Avenue address and that he was born on October 27, 1977. Finally, the petition alleged that M.B. was neglected as to the care necessary for his well-being, and that he was abandoned. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 702 \u2014 4(l)(a), currently codified in Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 3(1)(a).\nOn April 24, 1981, Judge Costa appointed the Department of Children and Family Services (hereinafter DCFS) as M.B.\u2019s temporary custodian and M. Leonard Goodman as M.B.\u2019s guardian ad litem. On May 22, 1981, Judge Costa appointed Corine B. as M.B.\u2019s temporary custodian. In June 1981, following a prove up, Judge Costa entered a finding of neglect and adjudicated M.B. a ward of the court. On June 30, 1981, he entered a dispositional order placing M.B. in the custody and guardianship of DCFS.\nOn June 26, 1985, pursuant to a petition filed by DCFS which listed M.B.\u2019s mother as \u201cAnnie R. Az M.\u201d and her last address as \u201cHong Kong,\u201d and which indicated that Corine B. was M.B.\u2019s grandmother, Judge Costa appointed Corine B. as M.B.\u2019s guardian.\nOver two years later, on October 27, 1988, M.B.\u2019s biological parents filed a petition pursuant to section 2 \u2014 1401(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 1401(c)) to vacate the 1981 finding of neglect and adjudication of wardship, and the 1985 order of guardianship. In the petition and supporting affidavits, the parents alleged that Corine B. had concealed the court proceedings from them during the previous seven years by furnishing false information to the authorities. They alleged further that they first learned about the proceedings on September 10, 1988, when M.B.\u2019s father went with Chicago police to remove M.B. from Corine B.\u2019s custody.\nThe hearing on the parents\u2019 petition to vacate was held before Judge Costa on various dates in 1989. During the hearing, Corine B. testified as an adverse witness that she was also known as Corine Bu. and that she had received public aid since 1951. She told the Department of Public Aid that M.B.\u2019s mother was her (Corine B.\u2019s) former husband\u2019s daughter, Ann B., even though this information was not true and she (Corine B.) did not then know the full name of M.B.\u2019s mother or M.B.\u2019s real name. She knew only that his mother\u2019s name was Ann (or Anne).\nCorine B. testified that in 1982, M.B.\u2019s mother came to take him for what was supposed to have been a brief outing but waited two years before returning him to Corine B. Corine B. testified further that she told M.B.\u2019s mother about the court proceedings before the foregoing incident in 1982, but she also testified, \u201cI didn\u2019t see her. How could I tell her?\u201d\nWhen M.B. was returned to Corine B.\u2019s custody in 1984, she had him enrolled at school. She did not personally enroll him, and she did not know that he was registered under his real name or that the school records contained his parents\u2019 names, addresses, and telephone numbers.\nCorine B. testified initially that in 1988 she told an investigator that she did not know the name of M.B.\u2019s father, even though she had seen him at M.B.\u2019s school in October 1986, and he had paid her his social security benefits (which she did not keep). She then retracted her testimony about telling the investigator that she did not know the name of M.B.\u2019s father.\nDuring the course of the adverse examination, Corine B. was shown a letter. She testified that she recognized it but \u201cnever did read\u201d it, that she would refuse to read it and that she was unable to read it. Although it is not entirely clear from the record which letter was at issue, there is an indication that the letter was a handwritten, notarized document dated November 14, 1984, and signed by M.B.\u2019s mother under the name, \u201cAnnie A.,\u201d in which she twice referred to Corine B. as her mother and appointed her as the \u201ctemporary legal guardian\u201d and custodian of M.B. This document apparently would coincide with the time that M.B. was returned to Corine B.\u2019s custody in 1984 after having been taken away for two years. It was subsequently admitted into evidence during the testimony of M.B.\u2019s mother.\nFinally, in response to a question posed by her attorney, Corine B. testified that she did not understand, and was confused by, some of the questions that she had been asked during the adverse examination.\nFollowing Corine B.\u2019s testimony, the parties stipulated that certain DCFS records and school records would be admissible into evidence as business records. The DCFS records dating from 1981 reflect that in 1977, three days before Corine B.\u2019s former husband, James B., died, he brought M.B. to her. The records reflect further that M.B. was his grandson, that M.B.\u2019s mother was James B.\u2019s daughter by a prior marriage, and that her whereabouts were unknown. The records state that as M.B.\u2019s step-grandmother, Corine B. was eligible to receive payments for providing M.B. with a relative foster home, and that M.B. was \u201cdoing fine\u201d in her home, which was a Chicago Housing Authority apartment. A June 16, 1982, letter from a DCFS social worker to the Chicago Housing Authority states that M.B. was Corine B.\u2019s step-grandson.\nDCFS records dating from 1984 and 1985 consistently state that Corine B. appeared \u201cto provide adequate love, structure, security and stability\u201d and \u201cgood care\u201d for M.B., and that he repeatedly expressed his desire to stay with her. The records state further that his mother\u2019s exact whereabouts \u201cwere always unknown\u201d to DCFS, but that she went to Hong Kong after M.B. was returned to Corine B. in 1984. In 1985, DCFS devised a plan to pursue private guardianship of M.B. for Corine B.\nSchool records dating from the two-year period of time from 1982 to 1984 when M.B.\u2019s mother removed him from Corine B.\u2019s custody contain his real name and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of his parents. For example, a school record dated September 13, 1982, lists M.B.\u2019s name as \u201cS.M.Bo.,\u201d his mother\u2019s name as \u201cA.A.\u201d and their address as the same Union Avenue address that is listed for Margaret Smith, a friend to be contacted in the event of an emergency. A school record dated October 6, 1982, lists M.B.\u2019s name as \u201cS.M.Bo.,\u201d his mother\u2019s maiden name as \u201cA.F.,\u201d and her then name as \u201cA.R.A.\u201d The record states that she was his legal guardian and it lists their Orleans Street address. Once again, Margaret Smith was listed as a reference to call in the event of an emergency. Another school record dated August 8, 1983, lists several different addresses for M.B. or his mother, while another record lists M.B.\u2019s father\u2019s name and the father\u2019s telephone number, and it lists the mother\u2019s name as \u201cA.F.\u201d and her Sheridan Road address and telephone number.\nAfter the parties had stipulated to the admissibility into evidence of the DCFS and school records, M.B.\u2019s mother was called as a witness. She testified that her name was \u201cA.R.Bo.\u201d and that it formerly had been \u201cA.A.\u201d prior to her marriage to M.B.\u2019s father. She testified further that M.B. was born on October 25, 1977. Following M.B.\u2019s birth, she and his father lived together approximately three years at an address on North Kenmore Avenue in Chicago. They separated in 1980. She continued to live at the Kenmore Avenue address while working as a waitress and studying music. She had met Corine B., whom she knew as Mrs. Bu., not Mrs. B., through Margaret Smith, who attended school with Corine B.\u2019s daughter. In December 1980, she decided to employ Corine B., whom she described as a \u201cloving, warm person,\u201d as a 24-hour a day babysitter for M.B. but she called every day, visited every weekend, supplied his food and clothing and paid Corine B. $100 in cash every week. According to M.B.\u2019s mother, the arrangement lasted until August 1981; moreover, Corine B. knew her as \u201cA.A.\u201d and knew where she lived, worked, and went to school, but never told her that there was a court proceeding or that DCFS had guardianship of M.B.\nShe removed M.B. from Corine B.\u2019s care from August 1981 until November 1984, because her friend, Margaret, was able to baby-sit for him then. M.B. attended school and lived with his mother on North Sheridan Road.\nIn October 1983, M.B.\u2019s mother happened to meet Corine B. at a funeral for Margaret\u2019s mother. Corine B. stated that it would be best for M.B. to have 24-hour supervision. M.B.\u2019s mother agreed because she loved Corine B. and thought of her as her own mother. In November 1984, when she returned M.B. to Corine B., the latter requested a letter stating that she (Corine B.) was her mother, apparently to satisfy housing authorities. M.B.\u2019s mother provided the letter, and they resumed the baby-sitting arrangement which they previously had. Corine B. again knew her address and telephone number, and both Corine B. and M.B. would call her on the telephone.\nM.B.\u2019s mother testified that she had no doubt that Corine B. was taking good care of M.B. \u201cbecause I won\u2019t leave my kid with anyone.\u201d However, her plan was to have him stay with Corine B. for only one year. But she did not take him back after a year because, in her words:\n\u201c[I]f I picked him up the police would pick me up. *** [S]he [Corine B.] said that she had some type of paper on him that didn\u2019t allow me to pick the kid up, so I wanted to know what kind of papers. She said, \u2018Just don\u2019t bother because, you know, if you pick him up I will call the police.\u2019 \u201d\nIn March 1985, M.B.\u2019s parents got married, but they separated about one year later. M.B.\u2019s mother\u2019s last contact with M.B. prior to her testimony occurred during the summer of 1988 when she and M.B. and his father went to a restaurant.\nContradicting her testimony that she previously had learned around 1984 or 1985 that Corine B. had a \u201cpaper\u201d concerning M.B., she testified that she first learned in 1988 of the existence of a paper or court proceedings, when her husband\u2019s lawyer advised him to go to Corine B.\u2019s home and \u201cpick the kid up.\u201d\nMarion Bo., M.B.\u2019s father, testified next that for the first three years of M.B.\u2019s life he (M.B.) lived with his parents on North Kenmore Avenue in Chicago. When M.B.\u2019s parents separated after three years, M.B.\u2019s father went to live with his own parents in Hanover Park, but he continued to visit M.B.\nHe first met Corine B., whom he knew as Mrs. Bu., in 1980. During that meeting, he wrote his Hanover Park address and his telephone number on a piece of paper, left it for M.B., and told M.B. to contact him there in the event of an emergency. He was living in Hanover Park in April 1981 (when the petition for adjudication of wardship was filed) and he continued to visit M.B. In the autumn of 1981, he saw M.B. at M.B.\u2019s mother's apartment. As far as he knew, M.B. was living there. He did not see M.B. between the summer of 1983 and March 1985. When he married M.B.\u2019s mother in March 1985, M.B. was living with Corine B. M.B.\u2019s father subsequently was in \u201cconstant contact\u201d with M.B., talking to him on the telephone and taking him to restaurants, to visit his (M.B.\u2019s) mother at her studio, and to Hanover Park.\nEarly in 1986, he separated again from M.B.\u2019s mother, but he continued to have contact with M.B. In late 1986, M.B. was troubled because he had not heard from his mother. M.B.\u2019s father assured him that she \u201cwas not indeed dead.\u201d\nIn 1985, he started to receive social security benefits, and in 1987, he made Corine B. the direct payee of those benefits for M.B.\nHe visited M.B.\u2019s school twice during the autumn of 1987, and he spoke with Corine B. at the school on both occasions.\nM.B. stayed at his father\u2019s Hanover Park residence approximately one month during the summer of 1988. The latter then permitted Corine B. to take M.B. on a trip. When he tried to pick up M.B. after the trip, Corine B. refused to let M.B. go. M.B.\u2019s father then sought legal counsel.\nIn September 1988, M.B.\u2019s father had Chicago police accompany him to Corine B.\u2019s home. Corine B. showed him certain documents containing the name \u201cM.B.\u201d M.B.\u2019s father testified that up to that time he was unaware of any court proceedings involving M.B., and he had no reason to believe that Corine B. had guardianship of M.B.\nDuring cross-examination, M.B.\u2019s father testified that M.B. needed someone to make day-to-day decisions for him, that he (the father) lived in the Hanover Park house from 1981 through 1988, and that there was ample room for M.B. to have lived there. Nevertheless, he (M.B.\u2019s father) signed a paper in 1987 authorizing Corine B. to take care of M.B. The authorization, which is included in the record on appeal, is dated April 22, 1987, is notarized, contains the name and address of M.B.\u2019s father, and states that M.B.\u2019s father, as father and guardian, gave his consent to Corine B. to take care of his son. It states further that he would make monthly payments to her for the care of his son, who was his dependent under a social security account. He did not take custody of M.B. when he learned that M.B.\u2019s mother was no longer having contact with M.B. Nor did he tell the hospital that treated M.B. in 1988 for injuries sustained in an automobile accident that he was responsible for M.B.\u2019s medical care.\nThe mother of Marion Bo. testified that when M.B. was a baby, he stayed with her at her Hanover Park home for 1 to IV2 years. Her husband (who did not testify) took care of M.B. more than she did. M.B. was removed from her home when his parents had a disagreement. During the ensuing years, she sometimes saw M.B. on weekends, and he stayed with her during the summers of 1987 and 1988. He also stayed with her at least one week almost every summer.\nDuring cross-examination, she testified that there was ample room in her Hanover Park house for M.B., that he had his own bed, and that she wanted to keep him, but his parents decided to place him with Corine B.\nJ.T. Detwyler, a probation officer assigned to the dependent-neglect division of the juvenile court\u2019s personal guardianship unit, testified that his records indicated that Corine B. was M.B.\u2019s grandmother. He first visited them in October 1985, and she showed him the letter from M.B.\u2019s mother. Corine B. had no information about M.B.\u2019s father until October 1988, when she showed Detwyler the father\u2019s 1987 letter giving her custody of M.B. She did not show Detwy-ler the letter during a June-1988 visit. In November 1988, she told Detwyler that M.B. had been struck by a car while running away from his father, who was going to inflict physical discipline upon him. Detwyler subsequently confronted her with a different version of the circumstances surrounding the accident. She then stated that M.B. had walked in front of a car after having exited her grandson\u2019s vehicle.\nDuring cross-examination, Detwyler testified that it would surprise him to learn that previous DCFS records disclose that Corine B. and M.B. were not related. He testified further that he made annual visits to Corine B. between 1985 and 1988, that M.B. was being well cared for, and that he never learned the reason why M.B. had walked in front of the car.\nNadine Snyder, a social worker at Michael Reese Hospital, testified on behalf of M.B. The attorney for M.B.\u2019s parents objected to her testimony, but Judge Costa overruled the objection and observed that he would allow the testimony because M.B.\u2019s best interest was the controlling consideration in the case.\nMs. Snyder testified that M.B. was admitted to Michael Reese Hospital in 1988 for a broken leg after having been struck by a car. He occasionally explained that he had deliberately run into the street because he and his father had argued and he was frightened. His explanations of the accident, however, were not consistent.\nMs. Snyder found M.B. to be a well-behaved child who interacted well with other children and who \u201ctook great delight\u201d in being tutored while he was hospitalized. When he learned that his father was ill, he was concerned about what he could do to help him.\nAfter M.B. was discharged from the hospital, he had daily appointments for bandage changes and whirlpool treatments. Ms. Snyder was impressed that M.B. and Corine B. \u201creligiously\u201d arrived on time for every appointment fairly early in the morning, that M.B. was clean, and that they tolerated medical delays. After M.B.\u2019s parents filed their petition to regain custody of him, he became erratic and agitated, he visited the hospital\u2019s emergency room on three occasions for anxiety attacks and he was referred for a psychiatric evaluation.\nMs. Snyder testified that M.B. was bright, but emotionally fragile, prone to sudden bursts of tears and frightened by the possibility of being returned to the custody of his parents, because \u201c[h]e doesn\u2019t know them. He doesn\u2019t know what going with them would mean.\u201d M.B. told her that \u201che would kill himself if forced to move.\u201d Ms. Snyder did not think that this was a fabricated threat designed to be used in court. When asked whether it was in M.B.\u2019s best interest to be returned to his parents, Ms. Snyder responded:\n\u201cI don\u2019t think any unprepared change is in [M.B.\u2019s] interest at this time. I think any sudden change at this time in any direction would be overwhelming to him. *** I think my suggestion would be an organized period of helping him sort out his own thinking and his own needs, with the adults involved to re-evaluate their own committments [sic] to this child. *** I feel that he is fragile enough and has been through enough changes, to inflict a change on him that is not well-secured, to potentially have it fall apart would be devastating. *** If you\u2019re referring to a return to his parents, these are not parents who have been parenting, and they are \u2014 they would be suddenly parents of an adolescent that they hardly know. *** [F]or the placement to then fall apart would be very difficult for him. It would be hard on any child. It would be devastating to [M.B.].\u201d\nDuring cross-examination, Ms. Snyder testified that she did not attempt to make contact with M.B.\u2019s parents because Corine B. had provided proof of guardianship. She testified further that M.B. would speak about his parents in different ways at different times, and that \u201che is concerned about being transferred to their care when he doesn't feel he knows them.. There is some appeal to the kindness they have shown him. There has been great anxiety among [sic] visits, great anxiety.\u201d M.B. told Ms. Snyder that during the time when he was believed to be in his mother\u2019s care, \u201cit was possibly in the care of a friend of his mother\u2019s and not with her.\u201d Ms. Snyder\u2019s impression was that M.B. had \u201cdifficult thoughts to deal with\u201d and that he had implied that he had been sexually abused, but he was never specific or clear about the abuse.\nHe did not mention any past history with his father and instead spoke of him only in present terms, such as the visit during the summer of 1988. He did not say that he spent any other summer with his father.\nMs. Snyder believed that Corine B. had been cooperative and that M.B. related to her \u201cfairly well.\u201d\nNext, Corine B. testified on her own behalf that M.B. \u201cwas in diapers\u201d when he first came into her care. At that time, Margaret Smith, who was a friend of M.B.\u2019s mother, asked Corine B.\u2019s daughter whether she knew anyone who, in Corine B.\u2019s words, \u201ccould keep a little boy.\u201d After Corine B. agreed to keep the child, Margaret and M.B.\u2019s mother brought M.B. to her. M.B.\u2019s mother gave her some coins that she had earned as tips while working at a restaurant. Corine B. then kept M.B. continuously from the day that he was originally brought to her, until the day that he was taken away for two years. No one visited him on weekends. His mother visited him only two or three times. When he was still in diapers, a caseworker from the Department of Public Aid visited Corine B. several times and told her that the child would have to be placed with DCFS if Corine B. did not know M.B.\u2019s real name. At that time, Corine B. did not know where to locate M.B.\u2019s mother and she did not know who his father was. She only knew his mother\u2019s first name, \u201cAnn.\u201d\nOne day M.B.\u2019s mother came and said that she was going to take him shopping for clothing and would bring him right back. Corine B. did not see him again, however, for the next two years. Then, when M.B. was six years old, \u201c[a] little short man from another world\u201d returned M.B. to Corine B. The man was not M.B.\u2019s father (whom she later met). (Other evidence in the record suggests that the man who returned M.B. to Corine B. was Mr. Azimuddin, possibly from Pakistan, to whom M.B.\u2019s mother had been married before she married M.B.\u2019s father.)\nCorine B. testified that M.B. had lived with her since the day he was returned to her. She met his father one day at school and the latter paid her his social security benefits, which she was still receiving. After she was appointed as M.B.\u2019s guardian, she received public aid and food stamps for him. M.B. spent two weeks with his father and grandparents in August 1988. M.B.\u2019s father was \u201cvery friendly\u201d until M.B.\u2019s mother reappeared, at which time he \u201cstarted acting up.\u201d\nM.B.\u2019s mother called \u201conce in a while,\u201d but her calls were infrequent and M.B. thought that she was dead. She told Corine B. that she was at her Uncle Rocky\u2019s house, but she never disclosed where she lived, nor did she give Corine B. any more money for M.B. Corine B. testified that she (Corine B.) loved M.B. and wanted to keep him.\nDuring cross-examination, she testified that she told the Department of Public Aid that her former husband had brought M.B. to her. She probably also told them that her former husband was the father of M.B.\u2019s mother. She made up M.B.\u2019s name, because she did not know his real name; she only knew his mother\u2019s first name, \u201cAnn.\u201d She told M.B.\u2019s mother that she had to \u201cgive\u201d M.B. to the court, and she asked M.B.\u2019s mother and Margaret what his real name was, but they refused to disclose it. Her husband suggested that she give him the last name \u201cB.,\u201d which was the same as her own surname.\nAfter M.B. was returned to Corine B.\u2019s care, his mother gave her \u201ca paper\u201d; Corine B. did not request the paper. Corine B. then enrolled M.B. in school under his real name, S.M.Bo. She testified inconsistently about whether the school records contained the names and addresses of his parents, but she testified further that she never saw the school records.\nNext, M.B. testified in chambers. At the time he testified, he was approximately 11 years and 11 months old. He stated that he did not remember ever having lived with anyone before Corine B. The first time that he remembered having seen his mother was when he was six years old. During the time that she took care of him, she had a different last name, and she left him with different babysitters or friends of hers in different houses while she worked. One of those friends was Rocky.\nM.B. had three brothers, but his mother \u201cput them out\u201d and M.B. never saw them again except for one chance meeting in a park when he was back in Corine B.\u2019s custody. When he was back in her custody, he saw his father \u201coff and on,\u201d but he did not see his mother, whom he saw only in court. Furthermore, he had only limited contact with his father because he (M.B.) did not want to have contact with him. M.B. spent three weeks with his father in Hanover Park during only one summer \u2014 the summer of 1987. He did not spend part of every summer with his father.\nM.B. testified that he wanted to live with his \u201cgrandmother, Corine [B.]\u201d He testified further that he knew she was not really his grandmother, that he merely called her his grandmother, and that she treated him \u201c[ljike a mother.\u201d He did not want to live with his real mother because they had no relationship and if she had wanted him, she would have kept him when he was \u201csmall.\u201d Nor did he want to live with his father because if the latter had wanted him, he (M.B.\u2019s father) would have taken him before there was a court case or before DCFS became involved. When asked whether he wanted to maintain contact with his parents, M.B. answered, \u201cNo. No.\u201d He acknowledged that was a serious matter, but it was a decision that he had made on his own, without any input from Corine B. Finally, he did not want to live with his father\u2019s parents because they had adopted his father, they consequently were not his \u201creal grandparents\u201d and he had no relationship with them.\nIf the court ruled that he had to live with his parents, he would \u201cfeel unpleasant.\u201d He \u201cvery much\u201d wanted to stay with Corine B. because she had put him in school and had fed and clothed him, and he was doing better in school while living with her than when he had lived with his mother.\nOne day in September 1987, M.B.\u2019s father came to visit him. After his father left, he (M.B.) was struck by a car and then was hospitalized. Corine B. provided the necessary information to hospital personnel. His mother did not visit him at all while he was hospitalized. His father visited him \u201conce in a while,\u201d but his father also was hospitalized at some point.\nDuring cross-examination, M.B. testified that he had no curiosity about his parents and never asked Corine B. about them. When he was asked what he knew about his father, he answered, \u201cNothing hardly. Just that he is sick. And he was in the hospital for surgery.\u201d He did not remember having written letters to his father, but he did remember having given his father some of his school work. He loved his father very much and was anxious about his father\u2019s illness, but he did not want to stay with his father because he was not sure whether his father loved him. He explained, \u201cif he loved me, he would have kept me. *** [L]ove is when you keep your child and raise them and feed them. And send them to school. And let them grow up.\u201d\nWhen asked what he knew about his mother, he answered, \u201cshe was a jazz singer. She had her own studio. And that she is going to marry my father. And she had many, many more men while she was seeing my father. *** Because she said \u2014 She let me stay with some of them while she went to her jass [sic] studio.\u201d When she disappeared for four or five years, he assumed that she was dead. Sometimes he called his father, who assured him that she was all right. He acknowledged that he had told the court about one month earlier that he wanted to call his parents every day, but he then \u201cjust got tired\u201d and \u201cdidn\u2019t want to call them anymore.\u201d When asked whether his mother loved him, he replied, \u201cI don\u2019t know. It sure doesn\u2019t seem like it.\u201d\nWhen asked to describe Corine B., M.B. testified:\n\u201cShe is nice. She is like a mother to me. She kep [sic] me when I was sick. She took me to the doctor. She has taken care of me throught [sic] bad times when I was a child. She pushed me to and from the hospital just about ever [sic] day so I could go to school. That is the reason [I] want to be with her. Because she kept me and fed me and clothed me. Why take me away from her now?\u201d\nIn addition to the foregoing testimony and records, there are various written reports in the record on appeal. We have already described the earlier records of DCFS and M.B.\u2019s schools, and we now turn our attention to the more recent reports in the record on appeal, which we will discuss in chronological order.\nA social investigation dated December 7, 1988, by the probation officer, Detwyler, states in part as follows:\n\u201cAccording to the minor, he states that he no longer wishes to reside in the custody of his parents as he feels that definite harm will come to him. The minor states that on several occasions, he has been physically beaten by his father and that he has no desire to enter into any type of family relationship with him. The minor also states that his mother -with whom he resided for a very short period of time in his life has also had him involved in illegal activities claiming that his mother wanted him to steal money while she was a prostitute from her customers. *** [T]he minor states that he believes that his parents will, in fact, harm him if he went to reside \"with them. *** The minor continued to state that he did not want to reside with his parents and if he did so, he would, in fact, commit suicide. This expression was not only verbal but in a letter written by the minor dated 9/28/88.\u201d\nDetwyler\u2019s report reflects that M.B.\u2019s parents were \u201can interracial couple\u201d and that they denied having harmed M.B. M.B.\u2019s father was born in Poland on May 22, 1957, and had a \u201cphysical disability due to being stabbed while he was employed as a bartender.\u201d He was receiving social security benefits and was attending classes at a college or a junior college. M.B.\u2019s mother was born in Texas on November 23, 1947, and she was working as a school bus driver. The report states that M.B.\u2019s parents \u201cappear to have a very good relationship with [M.B.] as they were able to produce letters and pictures of the minor when he was a baby.\u201d However, the report also states that M.B. was involved in an automobile accident on February 24, 1988, that he had an asthma attack requiring hospital treatment on October 28, 1988, that there were mounting contradictions in the evidence and that \u201c[i]t appears that currently the child\u2019s involvement with both of his parents is very very stressful and is as stressful with the current court appointed guardian.\u201d The report reflects that Corine B. closely supervised M.B., but her Chicago Housing Authority apartment on South Calumet Avenue was \u201cvery disorganized,\u201d \u201cin disarray,\u201d and in need of \u201cdaily cleaning.\u201d The report reflects further that M.B.\u2019s parents lived in a \u201cwell maintained *** three bedroom home\u201d in Hanover Park owned by his father\u2019s parents.\nDr. Blanchard B. Reeb, a circuit court of Cook County Department of Clinical Services psychiatrist, examined M.B., his parents, and Corine B. pursuant to a court order. Dr. Reeb\u2019s report, dated December 22, 1988, states that M.B.\u2019s mother married Mr. Azimuddin, who was from Pakistan, around 1974. They separated several months later. Around 1975, she met M.B.\u2019s father, Marion Bo., who was born in Poland but grew up in the United States in the home of his adoptive parents, who were 65 and 70 years old at the time of Dr. Reeb\u2019s report.\nThe report discloses that when M.B.\u2019s father was 17 years old, he joined the United States Army. He married his first wife when he was 18 years old. While stationed overseas, he drank \u201cquite heavily\u201d and used various illegal drugs. Following his discharge from the army, he divorced his first wife.\nBetween August 1979 and November 1980 he was arrested six times for \u201ckeeping a place of prostitution,\u201d but he was never convicted. He was also arrested for burglary, theft, and driving without a valid registration, and he was listed as having used six aliases, but apparently he was not convicted. M.B.\u2019s mother was arrested for retail theft and she was listed as having used three aliases, but she was not convicted.\nDr. Reeb\u2019s report discloses that M.B.\u2019s father had been hospitalized many times. Around 1975 or 1976, M.B.\u2019s father was hospitalized because of his \u201cheavy drinking and drug usage and the accompanying depression.\u201d Around 1981, he was hospitalized after having been stabbed in the back with a machete during a barroom brawl and he required a series of surgeries. In 1984, he was hospitalized in a psychiatric unit for depression. Around 1984 or 1985, he was hospitalized for a head injury after he had driven into a pole. In 1988, he was hospitalized for major depression with melancholia. He weighed approximately 400 pounds when Dr. Reeb examined him.\nDr. Reeb\u2019s report states that M.B.\u2019s parents had poor judgment and that there was little evidence they had serious regard for the differences between right and wrong. They were friendly and cooperative, but they were, according to Dr. Reeb, \u201cclearly quite manipulative and were not reluctant to alter the facts to fit the occasion whenever there was conflict in information or whenever it seems most convenient for their purposes.\u201d\nDr. Reeb\u2019s impressions were that Corine B. cared for M.B. from the time he was one year old, that M.B.\u2019s father had little or no contact with M.B. until the summer of 1988, that during the early stages of M.B.\u2019s parents\u2019 relationship M.B.\u2019s father was acting as a \u201cpimp\u201d for a number of prostitutes, and that both of M.B.\u2019s parents drank heavily and that his father also used illegal drugs, although M.B.\u2019s father claimed to have stopped drinking. Dr. Reeb observed that M.B.\u2019s parents had separated both before and after they married, that they remained separated until September 1988, and that they had been reunited approximately five months at the time Dr. Reeb examined them. In his report, Dr. Reeb questioned their living arrangements because they both acknowledged that M.B.\u2019s father\u2019s parents previously had refused to permit M.B.\u2019s mother, an African-American, to live in their Hanover Park home.\nAccording to Dr. Reeb, M.B.\u2019s parents had an \u201cunstable relationship\u201d and were \u201cvery resistant and reluctant to address themselves to the fact that they have not cared for the boy and have not had the boy in contact with them during the most important first eleven years of his life. *** They literally refuse to meaningfully address themselves to the fact that their son never really had the opportunity to get to know them as parents or as people during his most important developmental years to date.\u201d\nDr. Reeb observed that Corine B. was 63 years old and that she cared for foster children. She began to care for M.B. when he was not quite one year old. She did not then know his parents. \u201cMargante,\u201d a Mend of M.B.\u2019s mother, brought M.B. to Corine B. When the latter met M.B.\u2019s mother, M.B.\u2019s mother identified herself only as \u201cAnn.\u201d A social worker who visited Corine B.\u2019s other foster children told her that M.B. would be taken away from her unless he was given a name. Corine B. then named him \u201cM.B.\u201d\nCorine B. had custody of M.B. until he was about four years old. During that period, M.B.\u2019s mother visited him only three or four times. Around 1981 or 1982, she took him away and failed to return. Corine B. did not know where he was. In 1984, Mr. Azimuddin suddenly returned M.B. to her. Mr. Azimuddin told her that M.B.\u2019s mother had gone off with another man, that he could not locate her, and that he could not take care of M.B. himself. According to Dr. Reeb, there was evidence that M.B. had been sexually abused by his mother\u2019s boyfriends.\nM.B. remained with Corine B. \u201cuntil the trouble started\u201d in 1988. Dr. Reeb noted that since the parents had filed their petition to vacate and to regain custody, M.B. had suffered from anxiety attacks and one acute asthmatic attack.\nDr. Reeb observed that M.B.\u2019s relationship with Corine B. appeared to be \u201cexcellent.\u201d M.B. thought of her more as a real mother than as a foster parent. M.B. stated that she was the only one he had ever been able to depend upon and who had consistently taken care of him. He believed that she had taken good care of him and had met all of his basic needs. M.B. described his mother as \u201cundependable\u201d and he stated that he had \u201clittle or no meaningful relationship with her.\u201d When she took him away from Corine B., she placed him with her friend \u201cMargarita\u201d and visited him only once every week or two. After he was returned to Corine B., he had no contact with his mother for five years, until September 1988, when his father took him to meet her at a restaurant. The only other times that M.B. saw her were in court. According to Dr. Reeb, M.B. \u201csincerely states that he doesn\u2019t really know his mother at all.\u201d\nM.B. told Dr. Reeb that he \u201creally had seen nothing of his father *** until the end of the year 1987.\u201d M.B. also told Dr. Reeb that at one time he was afraid of being punished by his father and therefore he (M.B.) deliberately stepped in front of an oncoming car, fracturing his leg. We note that there is a conflicting version of the automobile accident in Detwyler\u2019s December 7, 1988, report. M.B. told Dr. Reeb that he lived with his father and paternal grandparents for one month during the summer of 1988.\nIn Dr. Reeb\u2019s opinion, \u201cthe parents\u2019 problems both individually and together in their relationship are too severe to permit them to form any stability and they are both to [sic] resistant to treatment to even suggest that there could be any improvement.\u201d Noting that visitation had been destructive to M.B., Dr. Reeb recommended that visitation be at M.B.\u2019s request and:\n\u201cIf at the end of a year\u2019s time these two parents show no evidence of an ability to resolve their differences or to form any stable basis upon which one might project that they have the capability for caring for this boy, the examiner would strongly suggest that parental rights be permanently terminated. In reality there is little basis for a parent-child relationship to have been built or to exist at the present time, the only meaningful relationship that [M.B.] has ever known has been with [Corine B.] who has cared for him throughout most of his life time. The examiner would urgently recommend that this boy be allowed to remain in his present setting where he seems to be progressing rather well. The only question the examiner has arises from some reports in the record which suggests [sic] that there is disarray in the current home of [Corine B.]. However there is little evidence to date that this has had any destructive effect on [M.B.\u2019s] development at this point.\u201d\nFinally, Dr. Reeb recommended individual therapy for M.B. as well as extension of his guardianship with Corine B. until he reached the age of 21.\nA report dated June 21, 1989, from Dr. Leonard Weiss, a Michael Reese psychiatrist who interviewed M.B. and Corine B., discloses that since initiation of the custody proceedings, M.B. had suffered from anxiety attacks and had threatened to commit suicide if returned to the custody of his parents. He suffered one of his anxiety attacks and he required emergency room treatment following a telephone conversation with his mother. He threw himself or ran in front of a car and broke his leg after his father threatened to beat him. We note again that the earlier report by the probation officer, Detwyler, contains a different version of the circumstances surrounding the accident.\nDr. Weiss\u2019 report reflects that M.B.\u2019s parents might have been \u201cstreet persons,\u201d that his mother might have been a prostitute and that his father might have been her \u201cpimp.\u201d When M.B. was three or four years old, he was \u201cstolen\u201d from Corine B. by his mother, who then might have placed him with someone else. When he was returned to Corine B., there was a \u201ccrusty lesion on his penis,\u201d so she took him to a doctor. Dr. Weiss observed that Corine B. and Nadine Snyder reported that M.B. had stated at various times that the lesion was the result of sexual abuse perpetrated on him by his mother and her boyfriends, Mr. Jim and Mr. Rocky. M.B. denied having made such statements, but he had episodes during which he imagined that his mother, Mr. Jim, or Mr. Rocky were \u201cdoing something\u201d to him.\nDr. Weiss reported that Corine B. had been taking care of the children of street people and prostitutes for years. She took custody of M.B. when he was less than one year old, after his mother could no longer afford to pay another woman who previously had taken care of him. When M.B. was two or three years old, Corine B. applied for and received public aid for him. She did not know his last name and she told public aid personnel that it was \u201cB.\u201d\nDr. Weiss reported that Corine B. \u201cseemed hesitant\u201d to discuss M.B.\u2019s parents because they had warned her, \u201cYou better watch your back old woman.\u201d However, she did tell Dr. Weiss that during the first few years of M.B.\u2019s life, his father never visited him and his mother rarely visited, spending little time with him when she did visit. When they reappeared in his life in 1988, he was struck by a car and he suffered psychiatric symptoms. According to Dr. Weiss, M.B.\u2019s \u201cpsychiatric symptomatology over the last year corresponds to the reappearance of his parents in his life after many years of absence,\u201d and \u201che continues to be at risk for suicide.\u201d The treatment recommendations made by Dr. Weiss included \u201c[continued placement with [Corine B.] with occasional well-planned and supervised visits to parents.\u201d\nOn September 14, 1989, Judge Costa granted M.B.\u2019s parents\u2019 section 2 \u2014 1401 petition to vacate. Judge Costa observed that he had evaluated the credibility of the witnesses and had resolved the inconsistencies in the evidence. He described the case as \u201cexcruciatingly difficult\u201d and leading to \u201ca conclusion which is not totally harmonius [sic].\u201d He observed that three issues were involved beyond the usual issues of due diligence and a meritorious defense which are raised by a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition: (1) a custody dispute which implicated the best interest of M.B., (2) laches, and (3) fraud. After observing that the doctrine of laches can operate to bar parental rights, Judge Costa stated that if only the first two issues (best interest and laches) were involved, \u201cit would be relatively simple to arrive at a conclusion, and I don\u2019t think I need state what that conclusion would be. However, there is a third issue involved, and that is the existence or nonexistence of fraud.\u201d He was satisfied that the evidence clearly and convincingly established that Corine B. had perpetrated a fraud ab initio upon the court and all of the State authorities and agencies involved. He stated that he was \u201ckeenly aware of\u201d M.B.\u2019s position but could not \u201callow a wrongdoer [Corine B.] to benefit from the act of wrongdoing.\u201d He then ruled:\n\u201c[A]ll of the findings entered in this case are void ab initio. The finding of neglect is void. The adjudication of wardship is void. The establishment of guardianship both in DCFS and in [Corine B.] are void, and they will therefore be vacated.\nNow, that leaves us in a position where we were at the time that this petition was filed; allegedly that parents are neglectful of [M.B.]. Needless to say, anyone can file a petition, and that is where we find ourselves at this juncture.\u201d\nWhen the assistant State\u2019s Attorney observed that he would take \u201ca cue from\u201d the court\u2019s comments that it would be in M.B.\u2019s best interest to remain in the custody of Corine B., Judge Costa responded:\n\u201cI cannot appoint [Corine B.] temporary custodian. I think the young man has done relatively well with her, not withstanding that. What I will do is appoint Gary T. Morgan [of DCFS] tern-porary custodian with right to place. If they see fit to place the young man there, that\u2019s them.\u201d\nThe assistant public guardian then made an oral motion to order DCFS to place M.B. with Corine B. based on the evidence regarding his best interest. The trial judge responded:\n\u201cI make this decision based on the young man\u2019s best interest. That will be allowed. DCFS is the temporary custodian.\u201d\nThe assistant public guardian then summarized the order as \u201c[temporary custody with Gary T. Morgan, and minor to be placed with [Corine B.]\u201d The parents were permitted to have visitation, supervised by DCFS.\nAt a September 20, 1989, status hearing, the attorney for M.B.\u2019s parents argued that M.B. should be placed in \u201ca neutral setting\u201d and that it would be \u201cimpossible\u201d for Judge Costa to make an \u201chonest\u201d determination of M.B.\u2019s best interest. Judge Costa observed that M.B.\u2019s parents had the right to a temporary custody hearing to determine whether there was probable cause for the neglect petition, and he then recused himself from the case, stating, \u201cI don\u2019t think I can maintain any type of objectivity. *** And as far as the placement of the young man is concerned, I\u2019m not going to disturb that at this time * * * 11\nThe case was then assigned to Judge R. Morgan Hamilton, who ordered a diagnostic evaluation and a social investigation. We will discuss the diagnostic evaluation by Hephzibah Children\u2019s Association later in its proper chronological place. The social investigation dated October 25, 1989, by probation officer Detwyler, disclosed that Corine B.\u2019s apartment was in some disarray but was \u201cadequately furnished and the housekeeping standards were fair.\u201d It further disclosed that M.B. received social security benefits from his father, while his mother was a school bus driver as well as a licensed beautician. Their combined income appeared to be \u201csufficient to support the family.\u201d\nOn November 1, 1989, M.B.\u2019s parents filed two motions to dismiss the 1981 petition for adjudication of wardship. One motion was filed pursuant to section 2 \u2014 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the other was filed pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, pars. 2 \u2014 615, 2 \u2014 619.\nIn the section 2 \u2014 615 motion, M.B.\u2019s parents alleged that the petition for adjudication of wardship should be dismissed because it contained fraudulent information about M.B.\u2019s name, his birthday and Corine B.\u2019s status as his custodian, and it failed to list correct names and addresses for M.B.\u2019s parents. They alleged further that Corine B. had furnished the fraudulent information to the Department of Public Aid and that Judge Costa had found that she had indeed committed fraud. They concluded that the petition for adjudication of wardship was \u201cunreliable on its face and not curable\u201d because it was based on fraud ab initio.\nIn the section 2 \u2014 619 motion, M.B.\u2019s parents alleged that the petition for adjudication of wardship should be dismissed pursuant to the principle of res judicata and because Judge Costa\u2019s finding of fraud was \u201can affirmative matter defeating the adjudication\u201d of the 1981 petition.\nThe public guardian filed a response to the motions to dismiss. With respect to the section 2 \u2014 615 motion, the public guardian responded that whether M.B. was neglected and whether it was in his best interest to be adjudged a ward of the court \u201cmust be decided regardless of misinformation, which could in fact be easily corrected.\u201d The public guardian observed that the names, addresses, birth dates, and custodial relationship of M.B. to Corine B. were not the disposi-tive considerations, that the 1981 petition properly pleaded that M.B. was neglected, that the claim that some allegations in the petition were false was not a proper assertion for a motion to dismiss, and that any misinformation could be corrected. With respect to the section 2 \u2014 619 motion, the public guardian observed that Judge Costa\u2019s ruling was not based on the merits of the neglect petition and that the ruling consequently lacked any preclusive effect to bar further proceedings.\nOn November 2, 1989, Judge Hamilton ordered the diagnostic evaluation to be conducted at Hephzibah Shelter in Oak Park, Illinois, and M.B. was placed in the shelter on November 14,1989.\nOn January 4, 1990, M.B. underwent psychological testing. A report by Gail Kaplan, a registered psychologist, discloses that M.B. had \u201cstated firmly and repeatedly\u201d that he wanted to return to Corine B.\u2019s care. He did not want to be placed with his parents, who he said did not love him, never took care of him, and left him. Gail Kaplan observed that M.B. was depressed, and she recommended that he be placed with a group home. She stated that \u201c[p]remature placement with either of [his] natural parents is apt to elicit increases in [his] oppositional and acting out behavior. Replacement with [Corine B.] appears to be out of the question at the present time.\u201d (She did not explain the latter remark.) She recommended group home placement for M.B. and psychotherapy for him as well as his parents and Corine B. so he could \u201cultimately be reunited with his parents.\u201d She concluded by describing M.B. as an \u201cinteresting, bright, and charming child.\u201d\nA \u201cdaily living staffing\u201d report dated January 10, 1990, and prepared by nine workers from the Hephzibah Shelter where M.B. was placed on November 14, 1989, states that M.B. \u201cclearly has a very loving relationship -with his \u2018foster mother.\u2019 He is beginning to accept his biological mother but is still contemptuous of his biological father.\u201d At that time, his projected discharge date from the shelter was February 14,1990.\nA social assessment report dated February 16, 1990, and prepared by a social worker from the Hephzibah Children\u2019s Association, discloses, as we previously noted, that M.B. was placed at Hephzibah Shelter in Oak Park on November 14, 1989. The report states that M.B. was in his mother\u2019s custody and care from September 1982 to November 1984, that she regularly visited him on weekends when he resided with Corine B., and that she regularly paid Corine B. for his care. M.B. threatened to commit suicide if required to reside with his parents. He was accepted at the shelter \u201ccontingent upon being cleared by [the shelter\u2019s] consulting psychiatrist as presenting no suicide risk.\u201d The report reflects that Dr. Lilian Spigelman determined that there was no suicide risk unless M.B. were placed with one or both of his parents.\nAccording to the Hephzibah report, all of the parties agreed that Corine B. had been M.B.\u2019s primary caretaker and emotional parent for at least the preceding five years and that M.B. had strong attachments to the other children in Corine B.\u2019s home. He indicated that he would like to stay with her but would reluctantly accept placement at Hephzibah.\nThe report states that M.B. \u201chad some level of positive relationship\u201d with his parents and \u201ca basis of attachment upon which we could build.\u201d M.B.\u2019s parents \u201cproduced numerous letters and school reports from [M.B.], indicating on-going contacts and a sense that he regarded them as parents.\u201d Two handwritten letters are reproduced in the report. M.B. signed both as \u201cS.,\u201d not \u201cM.\u201d The one dated September 11, 1987, was to his grandparents and his father. In that letter, M.B. stated that he loved them all and missed them even though he had just been there several days earlier. The other letter, dated May 25, 1988, was to his father. In that letter, he stated that he loved his father and he expressed concern for his health.\nThe Hephzibah report discloses that -visits between M.B. and his parents began during the week of December 18,1989, and that:\n\u201cIn the ensuing weeks, the relationship between [M.B.] and his parents, particularly his mother, began to develop in a positive direction. *** [M.B.] has begun to acknowledge that his mother is a different person, emotionally and insofar as parenting skills, than she was when he was with her six years ago. [M.B.\u2019s] relationship with his father remains, for the most part, estranged. Yet, it is clear that [M.B.] has some emotional investment in both parents, and that this should be encouraged to develop over time.\u201d\nThe report continued that M.B. \u201cappeared to be enthused\u201d about being at Hephzibah, given the \u201climitations at [Corine B.\u2019s] home, going to bed as early as 6:30 or 7 p.m. on weekdays, and rarely being allowed to leave the apartment because of high crime and harassment by older youths in the community.\u201d When Corine B. visited M.B. at Hephzibah Shelter in Oak Park, M.B. treated her as \u201can elderly grandmother with diminished capacity from her earlier parenting status.\u201d\nThe report discloses that while M.B. was at the shelter, his father was hospitalized for several weeks in a psychiatric unit. During his absence, M.B. reportedly made progress in communicating with his mother. However, there still were \u201cconsiderable emotional barriers of effectively reunifying [M.B.] with his parents.\u201d The report recommended M.B.\u2019s continued placement in a \u201cneutral structured group home setting.\u201d The report reflects that a referral process had been initiated with the Boys\u2019 Hope Program in Evanston, Illinois, a non-DCFS program, and that a decision was expected in March 1990.\nA February 16, 1990, report by Lilian Spigelman, M.D., discloses that M.B. had been in individual psychotherapy since November 1989. Initially, he \u201cthreatened suicide at the mere mention that reunion with [Corine B.] may not be in his best interests.\u201d Dr. Spigelman described M.B. as \u201cangry,\u201d \u201canxious,\u201d and \u201cmistrustful of adults.\u201d She reported that he had \u201cpresented some material\u201d which caused her \u201cto suspect that he has been neglected and possibly sexually abused during the short period of time that he was in the care of his biological mother.\u201d Dr. Spigelman recommended that M.B. be placed in a \u201cneutral, structured group home\u201d and that he continue his psychotherapy.\nOn February 21, 1990, Judge Hamilton dismissed the petition for adjudication of wardship. She stated:\n\u201cThis Court is satisfied that once there has been a finding that a petition for adjudication of wardship is grounded in fraud, then that finding is jurisdictional and the petition cannot stand. [0]nce the fraud is brought to the Court\u2019s attention the petition must be dismissed.\nThis Court finds that Chapter 110 Section 2 \u2014 619A1 [sic] is controlling. And that this Court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter, of the action by virtue of the finding that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the Court [ah initio]. And that the defect cannot be removed. The fraud cannot be cured. The fraud permeates the entire proceeding. Fraud [ah initio] cannot be amended out of the petition that is grounded in fraud.\nThis Court further finds that Chapter 110 Section 2 \u2014 619A4 [sic] is applicable. And therefore the Court orders the following:\nOne: That the minor [M.B.] is returned to the care of both parents.\nTwo: That temporary custody is vacated.\nThree: That the petition is dismissed with prejudice.\u201d\nM.B., the State, and Corine B. have appealed from the foregoing order as well as from Judge Costa\u2019s finding of fraud. They contend that Judge Costa\u2019s finding of fraud contravened the manifest weight of the evidence, but that even if Corine B. perpetrated a fraud, it did not warrant dismissal of the proceedings by Judge Hamilton because Corine B. was a witness, not a party, to the proceedings. They contend further that the doctrine of laches should have barred the assertion of parental rights in this case. Finally, they contend that Judge Hamilton erred in failing to consider M.B.\u2019s best interests prior to dismissing the proceedings.\nA special hearing which this court subsequently held on April 7, 1992, to realign the attorneys due to the public defender\u2019s confusion concerning representation, and a special status report which the public guardian filed with this court on May 14, 1992, disclosed that M.B. has resided at Boys\u2019 Hope, a Jesuit facility in Evanston, Illinois, since March 23, 1990. It was further disclosed that he is doing well there, that he is happy there, and that he would like to stay there until he graduates from high school. The status report states that he has received a scholarship, through Boys\u2019 Hope, to attend Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois.\nTurning initially to Judge Hamilton\u2019s order, we are satisfied that there was no impediment to subject matter jurisdiction in this case. The Illinois Constitution states in part:\n\u201cCircuit Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters ***.\u201d (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, \u00a79.)\nWe recently observed that subject matter jurisdiction is:\n\u201c \u2018the power to adjudge concerning the general question involved, and if a complaint states a case belonging to a general class over which the authority of the court extends, the jurisdiction attaches.\u2019 [Citations.] In Illinois, the circuit courts have original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters.\u201d (In re W.D. (1990), 194 Ill. App. 3d 686, 691, 551 N.E.2d 357.)\n(See also In re Marriage of Hostetler (1984), 124 Ill. App. 3d 31, 34, 463 N.E.2d 955.) Entry of a finding of abuse, neglect, or dependency is jurisdictional. (In re Shawn B. (1991), 218 Ill. App. 3d 374, 380, 578 N.E.2d 269.)\n\u201cThe language of the Act clearly exhibits the legislative intent that only a finding of either abuse, neglect or dependency must be specifically noted or recorded in the trial court\u2019s findings. This finding is jurisdictional and without it the trial court lacks jurisdiction to proceed to an adjudication of wardship. [Citation.] No other step under the Juvenile Court Act is jurisdictional. Moreover, once a minor is found to be either abused, neglected or dependent and placed in the custody of DCFS, the circuit court maintains jurisdiction over the case.\u201d In re Shawn B., 218 Ill. App. 3d at 380.\nThis action was initiated by the Department of Public Aid pursuant to its claim that the parents had neglected and abandoned M.B. Jurisdiction was acquired through the petition alleging neglect by the parents. Judge Costa found that M.B. had been neglected. After he vacated that finding, he placed M.B. in the custody of DCFS with permission to place the child with Corine B. Corine B.\u2019s misrepresentations did not negate the claim of parental neglect, which remained notwithstanding the misinformation that she supplied. Thus, the core of the court\u2019s jurisdiction was not predicated upon Corine B.\u2019s misrepresentations but rather upon the Department of Public Aid\u2019s charges of neglect. (See In re Shawn B., 218 Ill. App. 3d 374, 578 N.E.2d 269.) Judge Hamilton consequently erred in dismissing the proceedings pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619(a)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 619(a)(1).\nWe believe that Judge Costa\u2019s unfortunate use of the term \u201cvoid ab initio\u201d may have contributed to Judge Hamilton\u2019s erroneous conclusion that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. An order is rendered void only by lack of jurisdiction, not by error or impropriety. (Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Construction (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 159, 165, 449 N.E.2d 812; Johnston v. City of Bloomington (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 108, 112, 395 N.E.2d 549; McMann v. Pucinski (1991), 218 Ill. App. 3d 101, 107, 578 N.E.2d 149.) Fraud can render a judgment void, but not all fraud can do so. (Johnson v. Hawkins (1972), 4 Ill. App. 3d 29, 32, 280 N.E.2d 291.) There is a difference between fraud that confers only colorable jurisdiction upon the court and fraud that occurs after the court\u2019s valid acquisition of jurisdiction; only the former type of fraud will render a judgment void. (Schwarz v. Schwarz (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 140, 144-45, 188 N.E.2d 673.) The latter type of fraud, fraud that occurs after jurisdiction has been acquired, will render the court\u2019s orders voidable, but not void for lack of jurisdiction. (Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Construction, 96 Ill. 2d at 165; In re Marriage of Noble (1989), 192 Ill. App. 3d 501, 509, 548 N.E.2d 518; James v. Chicago Transit Authority (1976), 42 Ill. App. 3d 1033, 1034-35, 356 N.E.2d 834; Johnson v. Hawkins, 4 Ill. App. 3d at 32.) Fraudulent concealment, for example, renders a court\u2019s orders voidable, not void. In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector (1990), 194 Ill. App. 3d 721, 726, 551 N.E.2d 343.\nIn the present case, Judge Hamilton concluded that Corine B.\u2019s fraud nullified the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. However, any fraud on the part of Corine B. did not nullify the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, because it did not relate to the circuit court\u2019s power to hear and adjudicate a child neglect case. It related instead, for example, to the name and possibly the birth date of the child, the identities of his parents, and the pendency of the proceedings in the circuit court. These types of fraud are collateral to the jurisdictional basis of the action and do not account for the rescission of parental custody. At best, they would have an impact upon the right of Corine B. to be appointed to act as the child\u2019s guardian or foster parent once parental custody is rejected. Corine B.\u2019s fraud, in short, rendered the orders entered by Judge Costa prior to September 14, 1989, voidable, but not void. It consequently was incorrect for Judge Costa to reason that Corine B.\u2019s fraud rendered his previous orders void, and it was incorrect for Judge Hamilton to conclude that Corine B.\u2019s fraud nullified the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.\nIn addition, since we conclude that Judge Costa was in error in determining that the misrepresentations of Corine B. rendered his orders \u201cvoid,\u201d it was incorrect for Judge Hamilton to dismiss the proceedings pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619(a)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes dismissal when \u201cthe cause of action is barred by a prior judgment.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 619(a)(4).) Here, the alleged \u201cprior judgment\u201d would have been Judge Costa\u2019s finding that his previous orders were \u201cvoid,\u201d a conclusion which we have determined to have been erroneous. Since Judge Costa erred in finding that his earlier orders were \u201cvoid,\u201d Judge Hamilton concomitantly erred in following that finding.\nMoreover, before a judgment can have preclusive effect, it must be \u201ca final judgment on the merits. [Citations.] A judgment is final if it determines the litigation on the merits so that if affirmed the only thing remaining is to proceed with the execution on the judgment.\u201d (Relph v. Board of Education of DePue Unit School District No. 103 (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 436, 441, 420 N.E.2d 147.) The gist of Judge Costa\u2019s September 14, 1989, order was (1) to vacate the adjudication of wardship, the finding of neglect, and the guardianship appointment based on an ancillary matter, the commission of fraud by Corine B., and (2) to place M.B. in the temporary custody of DCFS and in the physical custody of Corine B. pending a redetermination of the issues pertinent to wardship and neglect. Given these circumstances, Judge Cos-ta\u2019s order was neither a final judgment nor an adjudication on the merits, and it did not serve to bar subsequent proceedings.\nWhile Judge Costa was in error in his determination that the orders were void rather than voidable as a result of Corine B.\u2019s misrepresentations, Judge Costa\u2019s finding in granting the section 2 \u2014 1401 petition that Corine B.\u2019s misrepresentations were fraudulent was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, contrary to the contention of the public guardian, Corine B., and the State. Nor was the granting of the section 2 \u2014 1401 petition an abuse of discretion. In section 2 \u2014 1401 proceedings (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 1401), evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses is for the trier of fact, and its judgment will not be disturbed on appeal unless it contravened the manifest weight of the evidence. (Uptown Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Kotsiopoulos (1982), 105 Ill. App. 3d 444, 451, 434 N.E.2d 500; Collins v. Prestige Casualty Co. (1977), 54 Ill. App. 3d 762, 765, 370 N.E.2d 103.) The \u201cquantum of proof\u201d required to sustain a section 2 \u2014 1401 petition is a preponderance of the evidence. (Smith v. Airoom, Inc. (1986), 114 Ill. 2d 209, 221, 499 N.E.2d 1381.) Whether to grant a section 2\u2014 1401 petition is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a court of review will not disturb the decision of the trial court in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Smith v. Airoom, Inc., 114 Ill. 2d at 221; In re Marriage of Oldham (1991), 222 Ill. App. 3d 744, 754, 584 N.E.2d 385.\nThe testimony disclosed that Corine B. fabricated M.B.\u2019s name. She, in fact, gave him her own surname, which was a false statement of material fact and which created the false impression that they were related. She also told the Department of Public Aid and DCFS that M.B.\u2019s mother was the daughter of her ex-husband, that her ex-husband was M.B.\u2019s grandfather, that she was M.B.\u2019s step-grandmother, and that her ex-husband originally had placed M.B. in her care. The 1985 guardianship petition stated that she was M.B.\u2019s grandmother. These assertions were material in that they conveyed the false impression that Corine B. and M.B. were related. Corine B. testified that she knew the foregoing statements and the name she gave M.B. were false. There was some complicity between her and M.B.\u2019s mother with respect to the 1984 letter, which falsely referred to her as the mother of M.B.\u2019s mother. She gave the child\u2019s false name and other false information to the Department of Public Aid and DCFS, the circuit court, and possibly the Chicago Housing Authority with the intent that they bestow various benefits upon her and M.B., whether public aid, food stamps, an order of guardianship, or subsidized housing. Consequently, we cannot say that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence for Judge Costa to find misrepresentations on the part of Corine B. (Smith v. Kurtzman (1988), 176 Ill. App. 3d 840, 846, 531 N.E.2d 885.) But as we previously noted, these misrepresentations did not divest the court of its subject matter jurisdiction because they were not related to the charges of parental neglect; rather, they were relevant to the award of custody to Corine B.\nNor was it against the manifest weight of the evidence for Judge Costa to make the implicit finding that there was fraudulent concealment by Corine B., which tolled the two-year limitations period that otherwise would have barred M.B.\u2019s parents from filing their section 2\u2014 1401 petition in 1988, more than two years after the 1985 guardianship order. Corine B.\u2019s failure to disclose to M.B.\u2019s parents the existence of the court proceedings, coupled with her misrepresentations as to the child\u2019s name and her relationship with the child, would suffice to support the court\u2019s implicit determination of concealment. Given the circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion for Judge Costa to make an implicit finding that fraudulent concealment on the part of Corine B. tolled the two-year limitations period prescribed by section 2 \u2014 1401. (In re Application of the County Treasurer & ex officio County Collector (1990), 194 Ill. App. 3d 721, 725, 551 N.E.2d 343; In re Marriage of Halas (1988), 173 Ill. App. 3d 218, 223-24, 527 N.E.2d 474.) Accordingly, we disagree with the public guardian\u2019s contention that it was an abuse of discretion for Judge Costa to grant the section 2 \u2014 1401 petition, but we agree that the court\u2019s subject matter jurisdiction was not divested.\nClosely related to the question of fraudulent concealment is the question of laches. The public guardian, Corine B., and the State contend that the section 2 \u2014 1401 petition was barred by the doctrine of laches. (See generally Tully v. State (1991), 143 Ill. 2d 425, 432, 574 N.E.2d 659.) However, in view of the fraudulent concealment on the part of Corine B., the laches doctrine is not applicable here. Furthermore, in cases where laches operated to preclude the assertion of parental rights, adoptions had occurred and the doctrine of laches was applied to preserve the stability of the family unit. (See In re Adoption of Miller (1982), 106 Ill. App. 3d 1025, 1030-33, 436 N.E.2d 611; Rodriguez v. Koschny (1978), 57 Ill. App. 3d 355, 361-62, 373 N.E.2d 47.) By way of contrast, Corine B. did not adopt M.B.; rather, she provided him with what essentially was a foster home. Furthermore, the parents\u2019 delay in this case will not disrupt or materially prejudice any stable family relationship, because M.B. no longer lives with Corine B. He currently resides at the Boys\u2019 Hope facility in Evanston, where he is doing well. We decline to apply the doctrine of laches here. See Eckberg v. Benso (1989), 182 Ill. App. 3d 126, 133, 537 N.E.2d 967.\nSince as previously discussed, the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court has not been divested, this matter must be remanded to the trial court to reevaluate the custodial rights to M.B. in a manner that best protects the best interests of the child.\nThe court is obligated to \u201censure that a dismissal of a petition to adjudicate wardship is in the best interests of the minors, their family, and society.\u201d (In re James J. (1989), 193 Ill. App. 3d 75, 80, 549 N.E.2d 834, affd sub nom. In re J.J. (1991), 142 Ill. 2d 1, 566 N.E.2d 1345.) This court recently observed:\n\u201cUpon a petition for restoration of a minor to the custody of the parents the issue that singly must be decided is the best interest of the child. [Citation.] Indeed, this is true in all guardianship and custody cases. ***\n* * *\n*** In custody cases, a child\u2019s best interest is and must remain inviolate and impregnable from all other factors, including the interests of the biological parents.\u201d (In re Ashley K. (1991), 212 Ill. App. 3d 849, 879, 571 N.E.2d 905.)\nFurthermore, section 1 \u2014 2(3)(c) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 states:\n\u201cThe parents\u2019 right to the custody of their child shall not prevail when the court determines that it is contrary to the best interests of the child.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 37, par. 801\u2014 2(3)(c).)\nSection 2 \u2014 31(2) of the Act states in part:\n\u201cWhenever the court finds that the best interests of the minor and the public no longer require the wardship of the court, the court shall order the wardship terminated and all proceedings under this Act respecting that minor finally closed and discharged.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 31(2).\nAlthough M.B.\u2019s parents will have an opportunity on remand to present evidence to the contrary, the evidence already of record if it remains unrebutted compels the conclusion that the placement of M.B. in his parents\u2019 custody would not be in his best interest. There were indications that M.B.\u2019s parents previously had been involved in prostitution and drug and alcohol abuse. Although the source was not totally ascertainable, there was some indication that M.B. may have been sexually abused while in his mother\u2019s custody. He testified that he saw his mother put his brothers out and that he never saw them again except for one chance sighting in a public park. Various sources disclose that when his parents filed their section 2 \u2014 1401 petition seeking to regain his custody, he made repeated suicide threats, he was struck by a car and he suffered from attacks of asthma and anxiety, requiring emergency room treatment. He adamantly opposed being restored to the custody of his parents and instead expressed a desire for visitation.\nDr. Reeb, who interviewed everyone involved, reported that M.B.\u2019s parents had an unstable relationship and that they had no compunctions about manipulating the facts to suit their purposes. Dr. Reeb strongly suggested the future termination of parental rights. Dr. Reeb and Dr. Weiss agreed that M.B. should remain in the custody of Corine B. Nadine Snyder testified that M.B.\u2019s parents had not been parenting and that it would be devastating for him to be placed in their custody. Gail Kaplan recommended that M.B. be placed in a group home. The Hephzi-bah report reflects that there was a basis for building a relationship between M.B. and his parents, but there would be a suicide risk if M.B. were placed with one or both of them. The reports of Hephzibah and Dr. Spigelman recommended that M.B. continue to reside in a neutral group home.\nTherefore, on remand, the circuit court must be mindful of the serious allegations against M.B.\u2019s parents as well as the fact that M.B. has been doing well at Boys\u2019 Hope in Evanston since March 1990. Moreover, since the best interests of the child must be of paramount concern, the circuit court should not rule out the custodial eligibility of Corine B. despite her misrepresentations, which we do not condone. However, given that M.B.\u2019s present status at Boys\u2019 Hope appears to be satisfactory, it should, if possible, be maintained.\nThe order entered by Judge Costa on September 14, 1989, granting the section 2 \u2014 1401 petition is affirmed with the clear caveat that his previous orders were at best voidable, not void; the order entered by Judge Hamilton on February 21, 1990, is reversed; and the cause is remanded.\nOrders affirmed in part; reversed in part and cause remanded.\nMcNULTY, P.J., and LORENZ, J., concur.\nThe State was originally designated as an appellee but was realigned as an appellant pursuant to its motion.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE GORDON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Patrick T. Murphy, Public Guardian, of Chicago (Lee Ann Lowder, of counsel), for appellant Office of the Cook County Public Guardian.", "Mary Ellen Dienes, of Northfield, for appellees.", "Evette J. Zells, of Chicago, for respondent Corine Bruce." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re M.B., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellant v. M.B., a Minor, Respondent-Appellant (Marion Bo. et al., Respondents-Appellees)).\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1\u201490\u20140854\nOpinion filed September 18, 1992.\nPatrick T. Murphy, Public Guardian, of Chicago (Lee Ann Lowder, of counsel), for appellant Office of the Cook County Public Guardian.\nMary Ellen Dienes, of Northfield, for appellees.\nEvette J. Zells, of Chicago, for respondent Corine Bruce." }, "file_name": "0352-01", "first_page_order": 372, "last_page_order": 402 }