{ "id": 1096631, "name": "In re B.J. et al., Alleged to be Neglected Minors (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Dale Johnson, Respondent-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Johnson", "decision_date": "2000-09-07", "docket_number": "No. 4-00-0203", "first_page": "193", "last_page": "201", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "316 Ill. App. 3d 193" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "589 N.E.2d 1101", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1104" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 Ill. App. 3d 681", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5237955 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "685" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/226/0681-01" ] }, { "cite": "586 N.E.2d 1326", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1331" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 Ill. App. 3d 1017", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5253623 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1024" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/224/1017-01" ] }, { "cite": "697 N.E.2d 302", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "310" }, { "page": "312" }, { "page": "312" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 Ill. App. 3d 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 910213 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "681" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/297/0668-01" ] }, { "cite": "649 N.E.2d 74", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "79" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 Ill. App. 3d 820", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 249163 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "826" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/271/0820-01" ] }, { "cite": "574 N.E.2d 893", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "896" }, { "page": "896" }, { "page": "896" }, { "page": "896" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "215 Ill. App. 3d 1059", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5293563 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1062" }, { "page": "1062" }, { "page": "1062-63" }, { "page": "1062" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/215/1059-01" ] }, { "cite": "688 N.E.2d 642", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "652" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 Ill. 2d 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 801353 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "204" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/179/0184-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 971, "char_count": 22174, "ocr_confidence": 0.749, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.8894749046253368e-07, "percentile": 0.728811409468274 }, "sha256": "6fa65efc303bfa6e20e4c2f602e209aceba88be83e333847230e24e7fab84d03", "simhash": "1:eba7df3c71d7c072", "word_count": 3511 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:10:00.608787+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re B.J. et al., Alleged to be Neglected Minors (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Dale Johnson, Respondent-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE GARMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn November 1999, after an adjudicatory hearing, the trial court found respondent father, Dale Johnson, had exposed the minors B.J., B.J., and J.J. to an injurious environment. 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 3(1) (b) (West 1998). Therefore, the court adjudicated the minors neglected and placed them in their mother\u2019s custody until after the dispositional hearing. In its December 1999 dispositional order, the court made the minors wards of the court, gave full legal and physical custody to the minors\u2019 mother and, at the discretion of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), granted respondent supervised visitation. Respondent appeals, arguing that (1) the trial court\u2019s finding of neglect and subsequent dispositional order were contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) the trial court erred by refusing to consider testimony from respondent\u2019s psychologist concerning J.J.\u2019s credibility and respondent\u2019s character. We affirm.\nI. BACKGROUND\nRespondent married Ellen Golden (formerly Ellen Johnson) in October 1986. The couple had three children, B.J., B.J., and J.J. (born April 19, 1990; June 22, 1991; and July 21, 1993, respectively) before divorcing in May 1994. Ellen retained custody of the children with respondent getting visitation every other weekend and one day during the week.\nIn March 1999, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship of B.J., B.J., and J.J., alleging that respondent sexually molested J.J. and therefore neglected all three children by exposing them to an environment injurious to their welfare. 705 ILCS 405/2 \u2014 3(l)(b) (West 1998).\nAt the September 1999 hearing on the petition, Ellen Golden testified that, since he was around two years old, J.J. had exhibited unusual bathroom habits. Golden indicated that J.J. did not \u201cuse\u201d the bathroom but would \u201csoil\u201d himself. Further, she would periodically catch J.J. crossing his legs and trying to \u201chold it.\u201d She testified that, at its worst, J.J. soiled himself three to four times per day. Golden said that two to three times a week J.J. inexplicably urinated in closets or on the floor of his bedroom. Golden talked with J.J. frequently about his bathroom habits, but J.J. always said that he did not know why he soiled himself and urinated on the floor.\nGolden recalled an October 1998 conversation with J.J. (who was then five years old) during which J.J. told his mother that he was scared to go to the bathroom. He said that there were things in the bathroom that made him afraid. J.J. told her that respondent had touched his \u201cprivate part.\u201d Golden stated that she gave J.J. a doll and asked him to point on the doll to where respondent had touched him. She said J.J. pointed to between the doll\u2019s legs. Golden testified that J.J. said the \u201ctouching\u201d happened \u201ca lot\u201d when they stayed at respondent\u2019s house. Upon hearing this, Golden called J.J.\u2019s school and asked John McKittrick, a counselor, to speak with J.J.\nMcKittrick testified that Golden called him in October 1998 and asked him to talk to J.J. about J.J.\u2019s unusual bathroom habits, which usually occurred after he returned from visiting his father. McKittrick said Golden did not explicitly tell him that she suspected respondent of molesting J.J. McKittrick said J.J. never actually told him that respondent had touched him inappropriately; however, J.J. did indicate that his dad was doing something scary to him while he was using the bathroom. Using a doll, McKittrick asked J.J. to show him what was happening in the bathroom. J.J. pointed to an area between the doll\u2019s legs. McKittrick said J.J. was visibly emotional during the conversation and had \u201ctears running down his face.\u201d\nJudy O\u2019Brien, a child protective investigator for DCFS, testified that she met with and interviewed J.J. at his mother\u2019s house on October 22, 1998. After some general discussion about the difference between \u201cgood touches\u201d and \u201cbad touches,\u201d O\u2019Brien asked J.J. if anybody had ever touched his private parts. J.J. said that his father had touched his private parts. O\u2019Brien explained to J.J. the importance of telling the truth about such matters. O\u2019Brien said J.J. initially dropped his head and said that it was not true, but then immediately burst into tears and said that it was true. J.J. said it would happen when he visited his dad at his house.\nO\u2019Brien further testified that J.J., along with his two siblings, were interviewed at the Children\u2019s Advocacy Center (Center) on October 27, 1998. O\u2019Brien said she, Mike Stroh from the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s office, Detective Dan Fevor, and Center coordinator Mary Whitaker were present during the interview. O\u2019Brien said that J.J. seemed very uncomfortable; to almost every question, J.J. responded \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d or \u201cI don\u2019t remember.\u201d Further, J.J. would hide his face in a pillow or lay on the floor in a fetal position. As a result, O\u2019Brien stated that they temporarily ended J.J.\u2019s interview and talked with his two siblings. Both siblings denied having been touched by anyone in a sexual or other inappropriate manner. When they resumed their conversation with J.J., he seemed slightly more relaxed and admitted that respondent had touched his \u201cprivates\u201d more than once. J.J. also stated that he had seen respondent do the same thing to his siblings.\nDuring the hearing, the court listened to the audio recording of this interview and reviewed the written transcripts. At the State\u2019s request, the court later admitted the transcript into evidence.\nSexual abuse therapist Jennifer J. Aranda testified that, in spring 1999, she counseled J.J. and his two siblings regarding respondent\u2019s alleged sexual abuse. Aranda explained that children who are sexually abused sometimes exhibit physical manifestations. Such manifestations can include enuresis (inability to control one\u2019s bladder function) and encopresis (inability to control one\u2019s bowel movements). Further, Aranda said that sexually abused children often exhibit emotional signs of abuse. The variety of characteristics therapists typically look for include acting extremely aggressive, depression, acting out sexually, and/or having low self-esteem. Aranda testified that J.J. was often withdrawn and appeared to have low self-esteem. Further, Aranda indicated that J.J.\u2019s history included bouts of aggression.\nJ.J. testified in camera at the hearing. When asked whether respondent had ever done anything that made him sad, J.J. responded \u201cyes.\u201d After being asked what respondent did that made him sad, J.J. pointed down toward his pants. Later on, J.J. admitted that respondent had touched his \u201cprivate area\u201d and nodded his head up and down in response to being asked whether respondent ever hurt him by touching him. Additionally, in response to questions from the court, J.J. indicated that when respondent touched his private area, respondent was not trying to clean him up but was cooking dinner. J.J. further said that it \u201cfelt bad\u201d when respondent touched him and that it hurt. However, J.J. said that respondent only touched him inappropriately on one occasion.\nDr. Larry Sapetti testified that he examined J.J. in November 1998. Although Sapetti stated, that he examined J.J. only once, other doctors in his practice had examined J.J. since his initial visit in January 1997. Sapetti further testified that, at that time, J.J. was having problems related to enuresis and encopresis. The doctor noted that J.J.\u2019s history indicated that another physician had previously treated him for constipation. Additionally, Sapetti commented that sexually abused children sometimes exhibited, among other things, a regression in toilet training behavior. Sapetti said that encopresis and enuresis can also be ca\u00fased by a number of physical illnesses including diabetes, hormone abnormalities, cystic fibrosis, Hirschsprung\u2019s diseases, and undetected infections. However, Sapetti said that tests performed on J.J. did not indicate a physical cause for his toilet training regression problems. Sapetti also noted that he performed a visual examination of J.J.\u2019s genitals and anus and saw no evidence of skin tears or scarring. Sapetti further noted that stress can sometimes cause encopresis and enuresis. Events such as the birth of a sibling and starting school can sometimes cause toilet training regression. Sapetti also agreed that asthma attacks, from which J.J. periodically suffered, could be very stressful to a child.\nDetective Dan Fevor testified that, after the allegations of abuse, he interviewed respondent at the McLean County sheriffs department. Fevor said respondent denied the allegations and was \u201cin the dark\u201d about the allegations. Although recalling no incident or activity that J.J. might have mistaken for an inappropriate touching, respondent conceded that he would jokingly warn J.J., when he misbehaved, that he was going to \u201csnip\u201d his penis off. Respondent said that he would display a cutting motion with his fingers when giving J.J. this warning. Fevor said that about halfway through the interview, respondent began shaking and started to cry.\nDuring his case in chief, respondent testified that he did not sexually abuse his children. However, respondent admitted that during 1997 DCFS suspended his visitation rights with J.J. and his siblings, due to an incident in which respondent spanked J.J. hard enough to leave marks. Respondent said that he administered the spanking after J.J. urinated on the wall of the bathroom and soiled his pants.\nMichael Lype testified that he and Ellen Golden (then Johnson) lived together for about five years beginning in 1993 and ending around 1997. Lype said J.J. was about six or seven months old when he and Ellen moved in together. Lype recalled that, beginning around age two, J.J. began having bowel and urinary problems. J.J. would soil his pants and appeared to try and prevent bowel movements from occurring. In addition, J.J. would urinate in the corner of his bedroom. Lype further stated that while he and Ellen lived together, J.J. never complained to him that respondent had touched him inappropriately. However, Lype did say that when J.J. visited respondent, J.J.\u2019s bowel and urinary problems seemed to increase.\nDr. Melvin French, a clinical psychologist, testified that outside of physical causes or poor toilet training by the parents, encopresis and enuresis are typically caused by psychological factors related to situational or environmental stress. For a child of J.J.\u2019s age, such stresses could include starting school, relocation, changes to the family system, domestic violence, or the birth of new siblings. However, he admitted that encopresis and enuresis can also be caused by sexual abuse. In reviewing J.J.\u2019s history, Dr. French noted that J.J. had undergone relocation, his mother had remarried a man who brought children of his own to the new home, and J.J. had recently started school. Further, Dr. French noted that, after her divorce from respondent and prior to marrying her current husband, J.J.\u2019s mother, Ellen, lived with a man who had physically shoved her in J.J.\u2019s presence on at least one occasion.\nRespondent also sought to have Dr. French testify that J.J. was not a credible witness and that respondent did not fit the profile of a sex offender. The State filed a motion in limine seeking to bar Dr. French\u2019s testimony in this regard. The court granted the State\u2019s motion but allowed respondent to make an offer of proof.\nDuring the offer of proof, Dr. French testified that the State presented no \u201cstrong credible evidence of childhood sexual abuse.\u201d Furthermore, Dr. French stated that J.J. was not a credible witness because of the coercive nature of the interview process employed at the Center. Finally, Dr. French concluded that DCFS \u201cfailed to pursue other explanations,\u201d noting that DCFS workers, in a December 1998 report, stated that \u201cthis is not a very strong case.\u201d Dr. French further testified that the psychological tests he performed on respondent did not indicate that respondent suffered from any severe psychopathology, including those relating to sexual behavior and alcoholism. The court elected to stand on its original decision to bar Dr. French\u2019s testimony regarding J.J.\u2019s credibility and any \u201cprofiling\u201d evidence regarding respondent as a sex offender. The court noted that the testimony regarding J.J.\u2019s credibility invaded the province of the fact finder and that case law clearly indicated that \u201cprofiling\u201d testimony was not admissible.\nIn November 1999, at the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court found that the State had proved its petition and adjudicated all three minors neglected. In reaching its decision, the court remarked that, in its opinion:\n\u201c[C]onsistent statements were given by the [mjinor, that he was touched in his private area by his father, and *** the [c]ourt notes *** a consistency about these statements to a number of different people, including in chambers. *** [T]he [c]ourt believes based on all the evidence!,] that by a preponderance of the evidence *** some touching in the sexual area has occurred!.] *** [T]his created an environment *** injurious as related to the child\u2019s sexuality.\u201d\nIn December 1998, the court, in its dispositional order, granted Ellen Golden full custody of all three minors. Further, the court provided respondent supervised visitation, at DCFS\u2019 discretion, only after he successfully completes a sex offender evaluation and provided that , the children\u2019s therapist agrees such visitation is in the minors\u2019 best interests. This appeal followed.\nII. ANALYSIS\nA. The Trial Court\u2019s Conclusions\nDefendant first argues that the trial court\u2019s finding of neglect and subsequent disposition granting full custody of the minors to Ellen Golden was against the manifest weight of the evidence. With respect to the court\u2019s dispositional order, respondent contends that, since the finding of neglect was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court\u2019s subsequent disposition is also against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.\nTypically, a circuit court\u2019s finding as to whether abuse or neglect occurred will not be disturbed on appeal unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re A.P., 179 Ill. 2d 184, 204, 688 N.E.2d 642, 652 (1997). This standard is appropriate given that the trial court is in a far better position than this court to assess the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence. In re T.B., 215 Ill. App. 3d 1059, 1062, 574 N.E.2d 893, 896 (1991). A reviewing court will not overturn the trial court\u2019s findings merely because the reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion. T.B., 215 Ill. App. 3d at 1062, 574 N.E.2d at 896.\nIn this case, J.J. testified, in camera, admitting that respondent touched his \u201cprivate area\u201d and that it \u201cfelt bad\u201d when he did so. Ellen Golden and Judy O\u2019Brien each testified that J.J. personally told them that respondent had touched him inappropriately, and, according to McKittrick, J.J. indicated respondent was doing something scary to him while he was in the bathroom. Furthermore, Detective Fevor and O\u2019Brien said that, during an interview at the Center, J.J. again stated that respondent had touched him inappropriately on more than one occasion and, in addition, had done the same to B.J. and B.J. The court considered not just these people\u2019s testimony regarding the interview, but actually listened to a tape recording of the interview and reviewed the written transcripts. Further, on at least three different occasions, when asked, J.J. pointed to an area between a doll\u2019s legs to indicate where respondent had touched him.\nIn addition, more than one witness testified that J.J.\u2019s problems with encopresis and enuresis could be caused by sexual abuse. While Dr. Sapetti testified that there are other causes besides sexual abuse, he stated that, after running several tests, he found no physical cause for J.J.\u2019s toilet training regression problems. Finally, respondent admitted that he had previously physically abused J.J. and had, as a result, lost his visitation privileges for about a year. Although the State presented scant evidence regarding respondent\u2019s abuse of B.J. and B.J., where a trial court finds that the minors\u2019 environment is injurious, it need not wait until each child becomes a victim or is emotionally damaged in order to remove the child from the household. T.B., 215 Ill. App. 3d at 1062-63, 574 N.E.2d at 896. Parents have a duty to protect their children from harm, and their failure to provide a safe and nurturing shelter clearly falls within the concept of statutory neglect. In re M.K., 271 Ill. App. 3d 820, 826, 649 N.E.2d 74, 79 (1995). Given that J.J. consistently identified respondent as the one who touched him, he told several different people the same thing at different times, the witnesses\u2019 corroboration of J.J.\u2019s in camera testimony, and the lack of a medical explanation for J.J.\u2019s toilet training regression problems, we conclude that the trial court\u2019s finding that all three minors were neglected by virtue of being exposed to an environment injurious to their welfare was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nRespondent also urges us to find that the trial court\u2019s dispositional order was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Contrary to respondent\u2019s assertion, the correct standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in fashioning an appropriate disposition. T.B., 215 Ill. App. 3d at 1062, 574 N.E.2d at 896. We also point out that respondent presented no case law on this issue and, in fact, made no arguments at all, as required by Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (177 Ill. 2d R. 341(e)(7)). Rather, respondent asserted that the trial court erred and deferred to the arguments that he presented regarding the trial court\u2019s finding of neglect. Given that the trial court\u2019s findings of neglect were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, its subsequent decision to grant custody of the three minors to their mother, Ellen Golden, and grant respondent supervised visitation, at DCFS\u2019 discretion, was not an abuse of discretion.\nB. Dr. French\u2019s Testimony\nRespondent contends that the trial court erred by granting the State\u2019s motion to prohibit Dr. French from testifying that J.J. was not a credible witness and that respondent did not fit the profile of a sex offender. Typically, a trial court should allow expert testimony only if (1) the proffered expert has knowledge and qualifications uncommon to laypersons that distinguish him as an expert; (2) the expert\u2019s testimony would help the fact finder understand an aspect of the evidence that it otherwise might not understand, without invading the province of the fact finder to determine credibility and assess the facts of the case; and (3) the expert\u2019s testimony would reflect generally accepted scientific or technical principles. People v. Simpkins, 297 Ill. App. 3d 668, 681, 697 N.E.2d 302, 310 (1998).\nDuring the offer of proof, Dr. French testified that, in his opinion, J.J.\u2019s reports of respondent\u2019s abuse were not credible because, during the interview at the Center, the interviewers were too forceful in their approach. Further, Dr. French said that alternative explanations to J.J.\u2019s statements and his toilet training regression problems were not adequately explored. With respect to respondent, Dr. French said that, after conducting \u201cpsychological\u201d tests, he got no results indicating that respondent suffered from serious psychopathology, including sexual behavior and alcohol problems.\nAlthough Dr. French was competent to testify about behaviors typically exhibited by sexually abused children, he was not competent to testify as to whether J.J. was a credible witness. See Simpkins, 297 111. App. 3d at 683, 697 N.E.2d at 312. Whether J.J. demonstrated behaviors typically exhibited by sexually abused children constitutes circumstantial evidence for the trier of fact to consider and give such weight as it deems fit. We reaffirm what we said in Simpkins: trial courts should reject the attempt to use purported expert testimony to bolster or attack a witness\u2019 credibility. Simpkins, 297 111. App. 3d at 683, 697 N.E.2d at 312.\nWhile concluding that Dr. French could not permissibly testify that J.J.\u2019s testimony was unreliable, he could testify, as an expert, regarding the technique employed by those questioning J.J. Certainly, Dr. French could have disputed the validity of the questioning procedure by which J.J.\u2019s responses were obtained and let the fact finder draw its own conclusions on whether to believe J.J.\u2019s answers; however, by asserting that, due to the faulty testing procedure, J.J. was not a credible witness, he invaded the province of the fact finder.\nMoreover, while respondent could have introduced evidence of his good character or personality through \u201cgeneral reputation\u201d evidence, the trial court correctly prohibited him from doing so using the expert personal opinion testimony of Dr. French. People v. Edwards, 224 Ill. App. 3d 1017, 1024, 586 N.E.2d 1326, 1331 (1992). Generally, opinion testimony is not a proper method of admitting evidence regarding character traits. In re J.M., 226 Ill. App. 3d 681, 685, 589 N.E.2d 1101, 1104 (1992). In declining to admit this portion of Dr. French\u2019s testimony, the trial court followed existing law; therefore, we can find no abuse of discretion.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.\nAffirmed.\nSTEIGMANN and KNECHT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE GARMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert M. Travers (argued), of Fellheimer Law Firm, Ltd., of Pontiac, for appellant.", "Charles G. Reynard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and James C. Majors (argued), all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.", "Jon E. McPhee, Assistant Public Defender, of Bloomington, guardian ad litem." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re B.J. et al., Alleged to be Neglected Minors (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Dale Johnson, Respondent-Appellant).\nFourth District\nNo. 4-00-0203\nArgued August 23, 2000.\n\u2014Opinion filed September 7, 2000.\nRobert M. Travers (argued), of Fellheimer Law Firm, Ltd., of Pontiac, for appellant.\nCharles G. Reynard, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and James C. Majors (argued), all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.\nJon E. McPhee, Assistant Public Defender, of Bloomington, guardian ad litem." }, "file_name": "0193-01", "first_page_order": 213, "last_page_order": 221 }