{ "id": 2435767, "name": "In re M.B. et al., Minors (Cecil Partee et al., Petitioners-Appellees; Marylou B., Respondent-Appellant; Jose B., Respondent-Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "In re M.B.", "decision_date": "1992-12-28", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201490\u20142161", "first_page": "697", "last_page": "709", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "241 Ill. App. 3d 697" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "360 N.E.2d 113", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 Ill. App. 3d 820", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2896694 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/45/0820-01" ] }, { "cite": "579 N.E.2d 19", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 Ill. App. 3d 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8499114 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/218/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 S. Ct. 2141", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 L. Ed. 2d 1366", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "388 U.S. 920", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6187520, 6187331, 6186984, 6188617, 6188237, 6188021, 6188440, 6187163, 6187773 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/388/0920-04", "/us/388/0920-03", "/us/388/0920-01", "/us/388/0920-09", "/us/388/0920-07", "/us/388/0920-06", "/us/388/0920-08", "/us/388/0920-02", "/us/388/0920-05" ] }, { "cite": "225 N.E.2d 10", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 Ill. 2d 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5377129 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/36/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "495 N.E.2d 1334", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 Ill. App. 3d 906", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3536554 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/145/0906-01" ] }, { "cite": "539 N.E.2d 344", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ill. App. 3d 693", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2628995 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "705" }, { "page": "705" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/183/0693-01" ] }, { "cite": "379 N.E.2d 872", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 Ill. App. 3d 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3336041 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/63/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "529 N.E.2d 92", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 Ill. App. 3d 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3514678 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "734" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/174/0732-01" ] }, { "cite": "571 N.E.2d 1120", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 Ill. App. 3d 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2605151 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/213/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "363 N.E.2d 820", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 Ill. 2d 515", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5463503 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "520" }, { "page": "520" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/66/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 N.E. 558", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 Ill. 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3275927 ], "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/204/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 Ill. App. 531", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2573736 ], "year": 1903, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/107/0531-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 N.E. 509", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1903, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 Ill. 157", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5115726 ], "year": 1903, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/311/0157-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1116, "char_count": 29291, "ocr_confidence": 0.775, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.6178694479071976e-07, "percentile": 0.8210312647571345 }, "sha256": "9baef579022419fe89678970e9b0834b7eb9a85801c75fa0d2e792e8af0dc76c", "simhash": "1:d8e6b4fe7e743155", "word_count": 4957 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:44.998173+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re M.B. et al., Minors (Cecil Partee et al., Petitioners-Appellees; Marylou B., Respondent-Appellant; Jose B., Respondent-Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn March 7, 1990, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed petitions for adjudication of wardship, alleging that the minors, S.B., M.B., and J.B., were neglected in that their environment was \u201cinjurious\u201d to their welfare. The petition concerning S.B. also contained allegations of sexual abuse, and the petition concerning J.B. contained additional allegations of physical abuse. All the petitions sought temporary custody of the children. On that same date, the juvenile division of the circuit court (juvenile court) conducted a probable cause hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that no probable cause existed to warrant the minors\u2019 placement in temporary custody, and the petitions were dismissed. The minors\u2019 mother, Marylou B., now appeals.\nWe affirm.\nAt the time of the hearing, the minors\u2019 family situation was chaotic. Their parents, Jose and Marylou B., named as respondents in the petitions, were in the midst of divorce proceedings, which were pending in the domestic relations division of the circuit court (domestic relations court). The evidence showed that, on January 1, 1990, Marylou fled Illinois, taking both J.B. and M.B. with her. S.B. was abandoned in Marylou\u2019s Oak Park home. Although Marylou had a court date scheduled in the domestic relations court at that time, she failed to appear. Apparently in response to Marylou\u2019s flight, the domestic relations court entered an order on January 3, 1990, which gave Jose custody of the children. In mid-January, Marylou \u201cabandoned\u201d J.B. at a psychiatric unit in Atlanta, Georgia. At the time of the hearing, Jose had physical custody of S.B. and J.B., who had returned to Illinois from Georgia on March 1, 1990. Marylou and M.B.\u2019s whereabouts, however, were unknown. As a result, a warrant had been issued for Marylou\u2019s arrest, and M.B. was the subject of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) search.\nThe juvenile court appointed a guardian ad litem for both S.B. and J.B. for the juvenile court proceedings. Attorneys representing DCFS, Jose, and the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s office were also present at the hearing. Although no timely appearance was filed on Marylou\u2019s behalf in this action, the attorney who was representing her in the divorce action attended the hearing.\nDiane Phillips, a DCFS child welfare supervisor, testified that she was familiar with the minors through her supervision of the caseworker assigned to the case, Anna Mitchell. M.B., who was in the physical custody of Marylou at the time of the hearing, had a hearing problem which necessitated her enrollment in special education. Such special education is begun when the child reaches the age of three, but M.B., who was four, had yet to be \u201cintake[n]\u201d in the special education school system.\nOn March 6, 1990, Phillips received a telephone call from Dr. Antonio Blanco, a psychiatrist at the Brauner Psychiatric Institute in Atlanta, Georgia. According to Blanco, he had been treating J.B. at the institute since mid-January 1990. During this treatment, J.B. told Blanco that he wanted to kill his father because he was afraid that his father was going to abuse him both physically and sexually. J.B. also told Blanco about instances of physical and sexual abuse \u201cperpetrated\u201d by his father against all three children. Blanco told Phillips that J.B. was \u201cat serious risk\u201d of both emotional and physical harm and that Blanco was \u201cafraid\u201d to allow J.B. to return to Illinois in accordance with the domestic relations court order.\nPhillips also spoke with Jerome Anderson, a mental health assistant at the institute. Anderson, J.B.\u2019s \u201ccounselor,\u201d told Phillips that J.B. had spoken of his father\u2019s membership in a cult, whose members \u201cmake him do things.\u201d J.B. also told him that he wanted to kill his father.\nPhillips also recalled a \u201creport of risk of sexual abuse\u201d listing Jose as the offender in December 1987, but the matter never \u201ccame to court.\u201d Phillips admitted that she has spoken to the minors herself, but that J.B. never told her about any instances of sexual abuse. Phillips also identified a \u201cfax letter,\u201d dated March 5, 1990, from Dr. Blanco, which made no mention of sexual abuse. However, noting J.B.\u2019s allegations of physical abuse, Blanco wrote that \u201c[w]e are concerned that the appropriate authorities in the Illinois area pursue this case in order to further protect the child\u2019s welfare.\u201d However, the letter failed to mention when the alleged abuse occurred. Phillips did not know J.B.\u2019s whereabouts until March 2, 1990. Phillips also stated that the cult allegations were new allegations. Phillips was awaiting further \u201crecords\u201d from Georgia, and she recommended to the court that Gary T. Morgan be appointed as the minors\u2019 temporary custodian based on the reports of physical and sexual abuse.\nDiane Mead, a clinical social worker at the New Mexico Clinical Facility, testified that she used to work at Sarasan in Illinois, a nonresidential treatment center for battered women. Mead was a therapist at the center since September 1987 and apparently counselled both Marylou and S.B., then 10 years old. Although Mead moved to New Mexico in July 1988, Marylou continued to telephone her as did S.B. The juvenile court sustained objections to Mead\u2019s testimony relating to the events of 1987, stating that it was concerned with \u201ccurrent information.\u201d\nMary Jo Gremp met Marylou through Gremp\u2019s support group for \u201cmothers without custody.\u201d Marylou attended the group\u2019s monthly meetings in November and December 1987, and Gremp spoke with Marylou several times between meetings. Gremp has never met Jose and has never seen the minors with their father. Gremp admitted that she was a friend of Marylou and that she, like Marylou, is a mother without custody.\nGremp knows the minors, and she stated that she had talked to J.B. privately approximately eight times. During these conversations, J.B. told her that his father \u201cwanted him dead.\u201d J.B. also told her that if he lied in court \u201con the domestic matter,\u201d his father would get him a \u201cNintendo.\u201d During another conversation, J.B. told her that \u201cpeople that his dad knew\u201d took him from school, brought him to a house, and \u201cdid things to him.\u201d These \u201cfriends of his dad\u2019s\u201d made him do \u201cvulgar things\u201d such as drink urine. J.B. said that \u201cthere was a priest *** and his father and his girlfriend, Dawn, gave S.B. a wedding band and made her the bride of the devil.\u201d J.B. and S.B. also were forced to sing a song called \u201cLive like a suicide.\u201d J.B. stated that he did not like his father and his father\u2019s friends and expressed fear of all of them. Gremp stated that these events took place in the fall of 1987 during weekends, but sometimes on weekdays as well. Gremp, however, did not call police nor did she notify DCFS or the attorneys involved in the divorce action pending in the domestic relations court, although she was aware of the existence of that action.\nThe juvenile court allowed S.B. to be questioned, in camera, by her guardian ad litem. S.B. was 12 years old and lived with her father. S.B. wished to continue to live with her father and was not afraid of him. S.B. stated that her father never harmed her, and she had never seen her father harm J.B. S.B. did not recall telling Diane Mead that her father touched her when she was in bed at night. During the summer of 1989, S.B. spent a couple of months at Hephzibah Children\u2019s Association (Hephzibah), a child welfare agency in Oak Park which works together with DCFS. She was allowed supervised visitation with her father and later progressed to unsupervised visits with him. When her mother was not present, these visitations went well. S.B. admitted that she had told Mead that \u201cshe used to be afraid\u201d of her father, but that she no longer was afraid of him because of the treatment she received at Hephzibah. S.B. no longer writes to Mead. S.B. stated that her father never hurt her, but that she had seen him hurt her mother. When her parents lived together, they \u201cscreamed and hollered\u201d at each other and fought over the children. When her father left the house, S.B. remained with her mother, who had \u201ca lot\u201d of anger toward her father. Her mother took S.B. to many places for therapy, including River Edge Hospital and the Madden Center. S.B. stated that her mother would not pick her up when \u201cit was time to go home.\u201d\nThe guardian ad litem also questioned J.B. in camera. At the time, J.B. was 14 years old and was living with his father, who had \u201cpicked him up\u201d when he returned from Atlanta on March 1, 1990. J.B. stated that he was not allowed to speak with his father while he was at the Brauner Institute. J.B. was not afraid of his father. His father never hit him, nor did he make him do things he did not want to do. J.B. wanted to continue to reside with his father, where he lived with S.B., his half-brother, Jordan, and his father\u2019s fiancee, Dawn. Neither his father nor Dawn frightens him. His father never hit him or S.B. and never touched him in places he did not like.\nJ.B. did not like Dr. Blanco \u201cthat much.\u201d J.B. denied telling Blanco that his father had hit him or that he hated his father. J.B. liked Jerome Anderson \u201cbetter than\u201d Blanco, but J.B. also denied that he told Anderson that his father hit him. J.B. denied telling Anderson about a cult. J.B. did not know the meaning of the word \u201ccult.\u201d J.B. knew Mary Jo Gremp, but could not remember talking privately with her. J.B. recalled telling Gremp that Beth and John Barclay, friends of his mother, took him from school to their home for an after school activity that J.B. had \u201csigned up for.\u201d They never made J.B. do bad things. J.B. expressed anger toward his mother, who he claimed \u201cabandoned me for some reason\u201d at a hospital in Georgia.\nJ.B. stated that his father moved out of the family home on April 29, 1987. From that time until September 1989, J.B. did not see much of his father. In the fall of 1989, his father started visitations which, at first, were supervised. In October, the visitations were changed to unsupervised. J.B.\u2019s weekend visits with his father and Dawn were \u201cokay.\u201d J.B. stated that his father had hit him \u201ca long time ago,\u201d but he did not hit him \u201chard\u201d and he \u201cdoes not do that anymore.\u201d\nFollowing the minors\u2019 testimony, the State and the guardian rested, and the juvenile court denied Jose\u2019s motion for a finding.\nDavid Kirsch, the court-appointed attorney for the minors during the divorce action, testified that he has been their attorney since April 1988. Over the course of the years, Kirsch has spoken with the minors often. In May 1988, he asked S.B. if she wanted to visit her father. She said no because he used to hit her when he was drinking. Kirsch also asked her if her father had ever touched her in places she did not like, but she responded that he did not. After treatment at Hephzibah, visitation with her father commenced. S.B. has been living with her father exclusively since January 1990. Kirsch had spoken with her since January, and S.B. indicated that she was not afraid of living with her father and wanted to continue to do so. S.B. told him that her father no longer drinks, and Kirsch averred that he had seen no indication that Jose was drinking.\nAs for J.B., Kirsch asked him if he wanted to live with his mother when she was found. J.B. answered \u201cnot anymore.\u201d J.B. told Kirsch he wanted to live with his father and asked Kirsch if \u201cwe could get M.B. back.\u201d When Kirsch asked J.B. about physical abuse, J.B. stated that his father hit him once, prior to 1988, for \u201cdiscipline.\u201d J.B. told him that his father had not hit him since that time. During the time that Kirsch had been involved with the family, he never saw any indication of cult involvement. The week before the hearing, Kirsch received a telephone call from a social worker in Georgia who informed him that J.B. was at the Brauner Institute, where Marylou had \u201cchecked him in\u201d in January. Marylou, however, had not been heard from since that time. Kirsch was also told that someone in the \u201cAtlanta mother\u2019s underground\u201d had reported that Jose was involved in a religious cult and devil worship. Kirsch said this information came from a source \u201cother than\u201d J.B. Kirsch told the social worker that he had never heard of any allegations of sexual abuse prior to this. She then asked Kirsch if he thought J.B. would be in danger if he returned to his father, and Kirsch replied that he did not think that would be the case. Kirsch recommended that the court not take temporary custody away from Jose.\nFollowing arguments, the juvenile court dismissed the petitions, finding that there was no probable cause and no urgent and immediate necessity for temporary placement. The court, in particular, noted J.B.\u2019s testimony, which it characterized as \u201cquite clear\u201d and the fact that divorce and custody proceedings were ongoing in the domestic relations court.\nOn April 6, 1990, Marylou filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that J.B.\u2019s psychiatric records had become available. The court denied the motion on June 27, 1990.\nMarylou argues that the juvenile court\u2019s finding of no probable cause was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The public guardian, as amicus curiae on behalf of the minors, also asserts a similar argument.\nJose responds that Marylou has no standing to appeal the juvenile court\u2019s order because she failed to appear at the hearing. We find this argument unpersuasive. The appearance filed by Marylou, although late, constituted her submission to the authority of the juvenile court and gave that court jurisdiction over her. (See Miller v. Moseley (1924), 311 Ill. 157, 142 N.E. 509; Gilchrist Transportation Co. v. Northern Grain Co. (1903), 107 Ill. App. 531, aff\u2019d (1903), 204 Ill. 510, 68 N.E. 558. See also 3 Ill. L. & Prac. Appearances \u00a75 (1953).) Moreover, section 1 \u2014 5 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 states the \u201cminor who is the subject of the proceeding and his parents, *** who are parties respondent have the right to be present, to be heard, to present evidence material to the proceedings, to cross-examine witnesses, to examine pertinent court files and records and also *** the right to be represented by counsel.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 801 \u2014 5.) By virtue of this statute, Marylou was a party to the proceeding. At the hearing, counsel for Jose objected to Marylou\u2019s counsel\u2019s presence, but the circuit judge replied that \u201cshe will have a say.\u201d At that point, the judge asked all of the attorneys to report to chambers for a discussion which was held \u201coff the record.\u201d When the case was resumed, counsel for Jose asked that Marylou\u2019s attorney, Gail Petrich, leave. The court indicated that it was \u201cgoing to let all attorneys who are involved in the case remain.\u201d From this record and in view of the statutory provision and case law cited above, we believe that Marylou has standing to bring this appeal.\nThe proceedings under review here stem from petitions seeking temporary custody filed by the DCFS pursuant to section 2 \u2014 3 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 3). The Juvenile Act mandates that, in such circumstances, a temporary custody hearing be held where \u201call witnesses present shall be examined before the court in relation to any matter connected with the allegations made in the petition.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 10.) If the court \u201cfinds that there is not probable cause to believe that the minor is abused, neglected or dependent it shall release the minor and dismiss the petition.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 10(1).) In all child custody proceedings under the Juvenile Act, the juvenile court\u2019s primary concern is the best interests and welfare of the children involved. (In re Stilley (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 515, 363 N.E.2d 820.) To that end, the juvenile court is vested with wide discretion. (In re W.B. (1991), 213 Ill. App. 3d 274, 571 N.E.2d 1120; In re J.K.F. (1988), 174 Ill. App. 3d 732, 529 N.E.2d 92.) That court\u2019s opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the parties and witnesses must be given great weight, and, upon review, its determinations will not be disturbed unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Stilley, 66 Ill. 2d at 520; In re J.K.F., 174 Ill. App. 3d at 734.\nUnder the Juvenile Act, a minor is neglected if his or her \u201cenvironment is injurious\u201d to his or her welfare. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 3(b).) Generally, \u201cneglect\u201d is the failure to exercise the care that circumstances justly demand, and it encompasses willful as well as unintentional disregard of parental duty. {In re Brooks (1978), 63 Ill. App. 3d 328, 379 N.E.2d 872.) Cases involving an adjudication of neglect and wardship are sui generis, and each case ultimately must be decided on the basis of its own particular facts. In re Stilley, 66 Ill. 2d at 520; In re Brooks, 63 Ill. App. 3d at 337.\nSince each child was the subject of a separate petition, and since the purpose of the Juvenile Act is to secure the care and guidance for \u201ceach minor\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 801 \u2014 2), we will consider the findings as to M.B., S.B., and J.B. separately. We also note that, at the outset of the testimony, the State and DCFS stated that the petitions were based on \u201crecent\u201d outcries of abuse.\nIn reference to M.B., little evidence was adduced. Phillips testified that the child suffers from an unspecified hearing impairment and that, as a result, requires special education. As of the time of the hearing, however, M.B. was not enrolled in any such program. Phillips admitted that the child was with her mother, who had fled the State some three months before the hearing. Thus, any action taken by the juvenile court with regard to temporary placement would have been futile since M.B.\u2019s whereabouts were unknown. Moreover, no evidence was presented which tended to prove that M.B.\u2019s legal custodian, Jose, had subjected M.B. to an \u201cinjurious\u201d environment. Rather, the evidence established that M.B. never resided with Jose, since the domestic court order which gave Jose custody was entered after M.B. was taken from Illinois by Marylou. The juvenile court\u2019s dismissal of the petition as to M.B., therefore, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nAs to the charges concerning S.B., the petition filed upon her behalf alleged that her environment was injurious to her in that she was sexually abused by her father. However, S.B. testified that her father never touched her in places that she did not like. Kirsch, the minors\u2019 guardian ad litem for over two years, also testified that he had specifically asked S.B. whether her father had touched her sexually and she replied that he had not. Phillips recalled an earlier \u201creport\u201d of a \u201crisk\u201d of sexual abuse in which Jose was the alleged offender; however, she also admitted that that charge never was adjudicated. Thus, the only evidence of recent sexual abuse as to S.B. was Phillips\u2019 testimony that Dr. Blanco told her that J.B. told him that his father had committed acts of sexual abuse against all three minors. However, if J.B.\u2019s statement to Blanco was the basis of the sexual abuse charges contained in the petition concerning S.B., we find it curious that the DCFS failed to include similar charges in the petitions concerning J.B. and M.B. since J.B. allegedly accused his father of sexually abusing him and M.B. as well as S.B. In any event, J.B.\u2019s alleged allegations concerning the cult also could be viewed as sexual in nature in that S.B. was the \u201cbride of the devil.\u201d However, J.B. denied making these statements and testified that he never saw his father harm S.B.\nMarylou argues that J.B.\u2019s previous statements to Dr. Blanco and to Anderson constituted sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. We disagree.\nSection 2 \u2014 18(4)(c) of the Juvenile Court Act provides that\n\u201c [previous statements made by the minor relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect shall be admissible in evidence. However, no such statement, if uncorroborated and not subject to cross-examination, shall be sufficient in itself to support a finding of abuse or neglect.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 18(4)(c).)\nAccordingly, J.B.\u2019s previous statements to Blanco and Anderson, who were not subject to cross-examination and which were not corroborated, cannot establish abuse or neglect. (In re Marcus E. (1989), 183 Ill. App. 3d 693, 539 N.E.2d 344.) Corroborating evidence has been held to be \u201cevidence which by its nature makes it more probable that the child was actually abused, and the corroboration of a child\u2019s claim of abuse requires more than the fact that two or more witnesses may testify that the child related the claims to them.\u201d In re Marcus E., 183 Ill. App. 3d at 705.\nHere, Phillips repeated what was told to her by Blanco and Anderson, both of whom were unavailable for cross-examination. Marylou directs attention to Mary Jo Gremp\u2019s testimony, which she argues provides the requisite corroboration to Anderson\u2019s statements. However, as we noted above, corroboration consists of more than testimony that the child related similar claims of abuse to the witness. After carefully reviewing Gremp\u2019s entire testimony, we are of the opinion that it was not corroborative of Anderson\u2019s statements for a number of reasons. Gremp was the only other witness to testify as to the cult activity. It was her testimony, in fact, which provided the graphic details of the alleged activity, since Phillips stated that Anderson did not question J.B. in detail regarding the nature of the cult\u2019s activities. Gremp also stated that J.B. related the cult story to her in late 1987. However, Gremp failed to contact police, DCFS, or even Marylou\u2019s divorce attorney at that time. That Gremp, admittedly a friend of Marylou and sympathetic to her plight as a mother fighting for custody, would stand idle for over three years in the face of such monstrous allegations certainly does not constitute \u201cevidence which by its nature makes it more probable that the child was actually abused.\u201d (In re Marcus E., 183 Ill. App. 3d at 705.) Furthermore, the time frame to which Gremp testified is at odds with both S.B.\u2019s and J.B.\u2019s testimony regarding their family situation at that time. J.B. testified that he saw little of his father after Jose moved out of the family home in 1987 and that he only began visitation with him in the fall of 1989. S.B. stated that when her father moved out of the family home, the children remained with their mother. S.B. began visitations with her father during the fall of 1989 with the intervention of Hephzibah. From the nature of the testimony, it appears that Jose had little, if any, contact with the children in the years prior to the fall of 1989.\nThe same analysis can be used to evaluate the petition concerning J.B., which based the charge of neglect on physical abuse. Again, much is made of J.B.\u2019s statement to Dr. Blanco that his father had hit him. However, J.B. stated that his father hit him once prior to 1988, apparently for disciplinary reasons, and had not hit him again. Although the State and DCFS based the petitions on \u201crecent\u201d outcries of abuse, most notably the charges of cult involvement, their witnesses, with the exception of Phillips, all testified as to charges which were over three years old. Phillips, herself, stated that she did not know the nature of the cult charges as told to her by Anderson because he did not \u201cpush\u201d J.B. in his questioning. Additionally, we note that no psychiatric testimony was presented to the juvenile court. Although there is mention in the record of Hephzibah\u2019s involvement with the family, there was no evidence presented, either documentary or testimonial, concerning the children\u2019s progress or lack thereof in relating to either parent or either parent\u2019s progress in parenting the children, evidence which, we note, is commonly adduced in such cases. Phillips did state, however, that Hephzibah and DCFS apparently had agreed that Jose take custody of the children. In view of the nature of the evidence presented at the March 7 hearing, we cannot conclude that the juvenile court\u2019s determinations as to the petitions concerning J.B. and S.B. were against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nMarylou next argues that the juvenile court erred by failing to inquire as to the children\u2019s perceptions concerning the truth.\nThe Juvenile Act states that \u201c[tjhere shall be a rebuttable presumption that a minor is competent to testify in abuse or neglect proceedings.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 18(4)(d).) The Act leaves to the juvenile court the determination of how much weight shall be given to the minor\u2019s testimony. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 802 \u2014 18(4Xd).) Moreover, this court has held that witnesses aged 14 and over are also presumed competent to testify. (In re E.S. (1986), 145 Ill. App. 3d 906, 495 N.E.2d 1334.) Age alone, however, is not determinative of competency to testify. The minor must be sufficiently mature to receive correct impressions from senses, be able to recollect these impressions, to comprehend questions, and to narrate answers intelligently. The minor must also be capable to appreciate the moral duty to tell the truth. People v. Ballinger (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 620, 225 N.E.2d 10 cert. denied (1967), 388 U.S. 920, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1366, 87 S. Ct. 2141.\nA review of J.B.\u2019s testimony reveals that he was competent to testify. At the time of the hearing, J.B. was 14 years old. By virtue of his age, therefore, this court can presume competency. Moreover, nothing in the record indicates that the presumption was rebutted. J.B. gave clear, forthright answers to the questions put to him. He impressed both the trial judge and his inquisitors by his recollection of the exact date on which his parents split up. As to S.B., who was 12 years old at the time, her testimony also indicates that the Juvenile Act\u2019s presumption was not rebutted. She was able to give her address, stated that she goes to school, and is picked up from school by either her father or her Hephzibah \u201cworker.\u201d S.B. had recollections of her family life when both her parents lived together, and she recalled her parents \u201cscreaming and hollering at each other,\u201d which indicates that she was able to receive impressions. Based upon our review of the minors\u2019 testimony, we rule that both children possessed the competency to testify.\nMarylou and the public guardian argue that the juvenile court erroneously denied Marylou\u2019s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the petitions because the motion was based on previously unavailable information. The information apparently consisted of the records that Phillips testified that she was waiting to receive from Georgia officials.\nPursuant to Supreme Court Rule 660(b) (134 Ill. 2d R. 660(b)), all juvenile proceedings not involving delinquency proceedings are governed by the rules applicable to civil cases. (In re B.H. (1991), 218 Ill. App. 3d 583, 579 N.E.2d 19.) Section 2-1203 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that, in cases tried without a jury, any party may, within 30 days of the entry of judgment, file a motion for a rehearing or for any \u201cother relief.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 1203.) Such motions are addressed to the circuit court\u2019s discretion, and its decision regarding such a motion will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Harris v. Harris (1977), 45 Ill. App. 3d 820, 360 N.E.2d 113.\nAlthough Marylou\u2019s counsel argued the motion to the juvenile court, she made no mention of the newly received information from the Georgia officials, the main focus of the motion for reconsideration. Instead, counsel inexplicably reargued the evidence which had been adduced at the original hearing. Based on the motion filed and the arguments made to the juvenile court, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration.\nThe judgment of the juvenile court, therefore, is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBUCKLEY, P.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.\nMarylou is the only appellant in this action. The public guardian has filed a brief on behalf of the minors as amicus curiae. The Cook County State\u2019s Attorney, an appellee in this court, has adopted the brief submitted by the amicus as its brief. The other appellee, Jose B., the minors\u2019 father, has submitted his own brief to this court.\nMarylou\u2019s attorney did not file an appearance in the juvenile court until March 14, 1990, one week after the court issued its order which dismissed the neglect petitions.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR" } ], "attorneys": [ "Julius Lucius Echeles, Larry S. Kajfes, Ltd. (Larry S. Kajfes, of counsel), and Austin Christian Law Center (Gail Petrich, of counsel), all of Chicago, for appellant.", "Ryan, Miller & Trafelet, P.C., of Chicago (Catherine M. Ryan, of counsel), for appellee Jose B.", "Patrick T. Murphy, Public Guardian, of Chicago (Ellen Gorin and Kathleen G. Kennedy, of counsel), amicus curiae and for other appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re M.B. et al., Minors (Cecil Partee et al., Petitioners-Appellees; Marylou B., Respondent-Appellant; Jose B., Respondent-Appellee).\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 1\u201490\u20142161\nOpinion filed December 28,1992.\nJulius Lucius Echeles, Larry S. Kajfes, Ltd. (Larry S. Kajfes, of counsel), and Austin Christian Law Center (Gail Petrich, of counsel), all of Chicago, for appellant.\nRyan, Miller & Trafelet, P.C., of Chicago (Catherine M. Ryan, of counsel), for appellee Jose B.\nPatrick T. Murphy, Public Guardian, of Chicago (Ellen Gorin and Kathleen G. Kennedy, of counsel), amicus curiae and for other appellees." }, "file_name": "0697-01", "first_page_order": 717, "last_page_order": 729 }