{ "id": 3748952, "name": "BARBARA CONNOR, Petitioner-Appellee, v. VELINDA C., Respondent-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Connor v. Velinda C.", "decision_date": "2005-03-09", "docket_number": "No. 5-04-0657", "first_page": "315", "last_page": "326", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "356 Ill. App. 3d 315" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "208 Ill. App. 3d 677", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2548997 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "695", "parenthetical": "the parties' relative economic positions must be considered to determine the child's best interests" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/208/0677-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 Ill. 2d 502", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5469127 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "508" }, { "page": "508" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/86/0502-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 Ill. App. 3d 1235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3719571 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1240" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/343/1235-01" ] }, { "cite": "322 Ill. App. 3d 297", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 126368 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "307" }, { "page": "307" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/322/0297-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 Ill. App. 3d 1087", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2987439 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1097" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/255/1087-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 Ill. App. 3d 686", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5238208 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "689", "parenthetical": "regardless of whether parents have ever been married, the statutory factors in the Dissolution Act are relevant to determine a child's custody" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/226/0686-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 Ill. 2d 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 777553 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "62", "parenthetical": "adoption constitutes a complete and permanent severance of legal and natural rights between biological parents and children, including the right to visitation and custody" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/156/0053-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 Ill. 2d 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5539137 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "53" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/112/0048-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 953, "char_count": 26549, "ocr_confidence": 0.75, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.46595304868987e-08, "percentile": 0.4450462169802178 }, "sha256": "e67a43d463d5123fc5d9e95c619482241083ef2591b2695a95c3966db49ca462", "simhash": "1:9d53a52e618d4975", "word_count": 4184 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:02.423948+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "BARBARA CONNOR, Petitioner-Appellee, v. VELINDA C., Respondent-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HOPKINS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe respondent, Velinda C., appeals the trial court\u2019s order awarding the custody of the parties\u2019 adopted daughter, Jasmine C., to the petitioner, Barbara Connor. Velinda argues on appeal that the trial court improperly applied the custody provisions of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Dissolution Act) (750 ILCS 5/601 et seq. (West 2002)) to determine the parties\u2019 custody dispute and that the trial court\u2019s decision to award the custody of Jasmine to Barbara was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.\nFACTS\nAn adoption decree was filed on December 20, 2002. The decree terminated the parental rights of Jasmine\u2019s biological parents and declared Jasmine, who was born on October 12, 2001, to be Velinda\u2019s and Barbara\u2019s child.\nOn January 30, 2004, Barbara filed a petition seeking the temporary custody of Jasmine. On February 10, 2004, Velinda answered Barbara\u2019s petition and requested that the court award the custody of Jasmine to her. On February 5, 2004, the trial court entered an interim order allowing Barbara and Velinda to share the physical custody of Jasmine and estabhshing each party\u2019s visitation as one-half of each week.\nOn May 6 and July 19, 2004, the court held hearings regarding Jasmine\u2019s custody. Velinda testified that she was 41 years old and lived with her three daughters, Jessica C., age 18, Anna C., age 17, and Brittany C., age 13, along with Jasmine, who was her biological granddaughter. Velinda testified that she and Barbara lived together from June 1997 until January 2004 in Velinda\u2019s home. In 2001, Jessica, who was 15 at the time, became pregnant with Jasmine. Jessica\u2019s boyfriend, Corey Smith, who was also 15 at the time, was Jasmine\u2019s father. In December 2002, after Jessica\u2019s and Corey\u2019s parental rights were terminated, Velinda and Barbara adopted Jasmine. Velinda testified that she had assumed the custody of Jasmine to provide Jasmine with insurance and to terminate Corey\u2019s parental rights. Velinda testified that she and Barbara had promised Jessica that when Jessica finished college, they would return to court and reverse the adoption, placing Jasmine into Jessica\u2019s care. Velinda testified that before and after Jasmine\u2019s adoption, Jessica played the dominant mother role for Jasmine, that Jasmine called Jessica \u201cmommy,\u201d and that when talking to Jasmine during visitation exchanges, even Barbara referred to Jessica as \u201cmommy.\u201d Jessica changed Jasmine\u2019s diapers, prepared her food and bottles, bathed her, and transported her to and from the baby-sitter.\nVelinda testified that after 1999, she learned that Jessica and Anna had been molested by their father, to whom Velinda had been married until 1996. Velinda notified the proper authorities and provided her daughters with counseling. On approximately five occasions in 2002, while Jasmine was living in Velinda\u2019s home, Anna attempted suicide by drug overdose, using prescription drugs from Velinda\u2019s bedroom. One attempt occurred in Velinda\u2019s home, although Jasmine was not near Anna at the time. Anna suffered from depression and self-mutilation, and in October 2003, she was convicted of a felony for distributing antidepressants at school. Brittany\u2019s therapist indicated that Brittany, too, probably had been sexually molested by her father but that she subconsciously chose to forget. Velinda testified that she would not have a problem leaving Jasmine alone with Jessica, Anna, or Brittany.\nVelinda testified that her house was very clean and that at the time of the hearing, fish were the only house pets. Velinda testified that she and the girls watched television in her bedroom, which was more like the family room. Velinda testified that she did not drink alcohol in Jasmine\u2019s presence but that she took the prescription drug Xanax until January 2004.\nVelinda testified that Jasmine suffered from pneumonia and used a breathing machine to help her breathe. Velinda testified that in the spring, Jasmine took some prescription medicine which listed extreme diaper rash as a side effect and that Jasmine suffered from extreme diaper rash, although, at the time of the hearing, it had healed.\nVelinda testified that Barbara suffered from headaches, backaches, and leg aches daily and took Vicodin, which was prescribed to Barbara\u2019s mother, Joanne. Velinda testified that Barbara never recovered from leukemia, that Barbara did not have the energy to cook and clean, that Barbara drank alcohol to excess, and that Barbara smoked cigarettes.\nVelinda testified that since February 9, 2004, she had been employed by Financial Asset Management Systems as a bill collector for Cingular Wireless. Velinda\u2019s hourly wage was $12.69, and she worked 40 hours per week. On Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, Velinda worked from 12 to 9 p.m., and on Thursdays and Fridays, she worked from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Velinda also received $840 per month in child support.\nJessica testified that since Jasmine\u2019s birth, Jasmine slept in Jessica\u2019s room and that Jessica cared for Jasmine, bathed her, changed her diapers, fed her, made her bottles, prepared her for the baby-sitter, and transported her to and from the baby-sitter. Jessica testified that even after Velinda and Barbara adopted Jasmine, Jessica remained Jasmine\u2019s primary caregiver. Jessica testified that when Barbara lived in Velinda\u2019s home, Jessica provided substantially more daily care for Jasmine than did either Velinda or Barbara.\nJessica testified that from 2001 to 2003, when Barbara and Velinda were living together, Barbara brought liquor into the house. Jessica testified that Barbara often became intoxicated and, as a result, behaved irrationally. Jessica testified that Barbara did not care for Jasmine on a daily basis by making her meals or changing her diapers.\nJessica testified that on Sunday mornings, Velinda woke with Jasmine and cooked Jasmine breakfast, bathed her, changed her diaper, and fed her. Jessica testified that from August 2003 until February 2004, Velinda did not work outside the home and cared for Jasmine while Jessica was at school. Jessica testified that Velinda played with Jasmine and that Velinda and Jessica took Jasmine to the park and on other fun field trips.\nJessica testified that Jasmine suffered from diaper rash in general and that in March 2004, Jasmine was given antibiotics for pneumonia, which worsened her diaper rash. Jessica testified that since Velinda and Barbara\u2019s separation, Jasmine acted withdrawn. Jessica testified that on one occasion when she was curling her hair, Jasmine accidently touched the curling iron, which caused a burn to her hand. Jessica also testified that when Jasmine returned from Barbara\u2019s home on June 30, 2004, Jasmine had a blister on her hand.\nCorey Smith, Jasmine\u2019s biological father and Jessica\u2019s boyfriend at the time of the hearing, testified that when he visited Velinda\u2019s home after Jasmine\u2019s birth until April 2002, he regularly observed Barbara drinking beer and becoming intoxicated. Corey testified that he did not observe Velinda using drugs. He testified that Velinda treated Jasmine as a granddaughter and that Barbara played with Jasmine by watching television. Corey testified that he changed Jasmine\u2019s diapers, bathed her, and participated in caring for her. He testified that Velinda bathed Jasmine if he and Jessica were unavailable.\nCorey testified that after January 2004, he visited Velinda\u2019s household every day after work until 10 p.m. Corey testified that when he stayed overnight at Velinda\u2019s, he slept in Jessica\u2019s room and Jessica and Jasmine slept in Velinda\u2019s room. Corey testified that since Barbara left Velinda\u2019s house, the house remained clean.\nAnna testified that from Jasmine\u2019s birth until January 2004, when Barbara lived in Velinda\u2019s home, Anna, Jessica, and Velinda were responsible for cleaning the house and Velinda was responsible for cooking. Anna testified that she never observed Velinda drinking alcohol after Jasmine was born. Anna testified that Jessica primarily cared for Jasmine and that Velinda helped.\nCarl Springer, Jessica\u2019s boyfriend from 2002 until three weeks before the hearing, testified that from August 2002 until January 2003, he regularly transported Jessica to school. Carl testified that Jessica dressed Jasmine and that he and Jessica transported Jasmine to and from the baby-sitter. He testified that Jessica played the primary mother role in the home but that when Barbara returned from work, Barbara held, fed, and watched television with Jasmine and that Barbara occasionally picked Jasmine up from the baby-sitter. Carl testified that in the summer of 2002, he witnessed Barbara drinking up to six beers in the evenings. He testified that Jessica and Anna cooked and cleaned Velinda and Barbara\u2019s home. Carl testified that since January 2004, he had witnessed Velinda caring for Jasmine, making her food, changing her diaper, changing her clothes, bathing her, and playing with her.\nKaren Augustin, a psychotherapist who worked for Alternatives Counseling, testified that she counseled Jessica from May 2002 until August 2003. Karen visited Velinda\u2019s home and described Velinda\u2019s front room and kitchen as clean. She described Jasmine as clean, healthy, and happy. Karen testified that Barbara usually brought Jasmine from day care.\nAmy Hart, a child adolescent specialist at the Community Counseling Center in Alton, testified that she counseled Anna beginning in April 2002. Amy visited Anna in Velinda\u2019s home and testified that Velinda\u2019s home was clean. Amy testified that at the end of August 2003, she observed Barbara drinking a 24-ounce beer and that Barbara\u2019s speech was slurred. Amy testified that she never observed Velinda drinking alcohol or using drugs.\nBarbara testified that she was 42 years old and lived with her mother, Joanne, and her husband, Bartholomew (Bart) Grafton, whom she married on April 23, 2004. Barbara worked as a technical coordinator at St. Louis University Hospital for Renal Care Group, earning $40,000 per year. She had worked in this position for 12 years. She worked three days per week, from approximately 4 a.m. to 7 p.m. Bart also worked as a technical coordinator, earning approximately $40,000 per year. Because she suffered from heart problems and arthritis, Joanne received social security disability payments.\nBarbara testified that when she lived in Velinda\u2019s home, she primarily cared for Jasmine. Barbara testified that when she adopted Jasmine, she understood that she would raise Jasmine, pay for her college, and care for her. Barbara considered Jasmine to be her daughter, loved her very much, and continued to care for her daily. Barbara testified that Joanne baby-sat Jasmine one day during the week while Barbara worked and that Joanne danced with Jasmine, cooked for her, and played in the yard with her. Barbara testified that Bart also played in the yard with Jasmine, bathed her, changed her diapers, and took her to the park and to McDonald\u2019s. Barbara testified that although she and Bart smoked cigarettes, they did not smoke in Jasmine\u2019s presence or in their home.\nBarbara testified that she was last treated for leukemia before Jasmine was born and that she had not missed work due to leukemia since 2001. She acknowledged that she underwent two surgeries for a hysterectomy in 2003. Barbara testified that she never took drugs and that the Department of Children and Family Services had tested her for drugs during the investigation of the sexual abuse allegations in Velinda\u2019s family and that she was periodically tested for drugs at work. Barbara acknowledged that on a couple of occasions, she drank a few beers in Jasmine\u2019s presence, but she denied that she ever became intoxicated. Barbara testified that since February, she had taken the prescription drug Xanax. Barbara testified that she had taken various prescription drugs in the past, but she denied that she had ever taken her mother\u2019s prescription medication.\nBarbara testified that during their relationship, Velinda often received unemployment payments, that Barbara paid the majority of the bills, and that Velinda spent most of her time in bed. Barbara testified that Velinda had been addicted to Paxil for six months, that Velinda took other prescription drugs, and that Velinda drank hard liquor to the point of intoxication. Barbara testified that Velinda\u2019s older daughters destroyed the bathroom door, the walls, and the cabinets in Velinda\u2019s home and that many cats lived in Velinda\u2019s home.\nBarbara testified that when in Velinda\u2019s care, Jasmine did not have a scheduled bedtime, that Jasmine was exhausted after visits with Velinda, that Velinda returned Jasmine to Barbara during the winter with no shoes, no shirt, and no hat, and that Velinda returned Jasmine with diaper rash. Barbara acknowledged that Jasmine received a blister in June 2004 from a sparkler firework that Barbara allowed her to hold.\nBart, who was 47 years old and worked for Renal Care Group at Forest Park Hospital in St. Louis, testified that his hourly wage was $20 and that he worked Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Bart testified that Barbara played with Jasmine, fed her, watched cartoons with her, and took her to outings such as the park and McDonald\u2019s playland. Bart testified that Jasmine called Barbara \u201cmom.\u201d Bart testified that he also played with Jasmine and cared for her daily. Bart testified that Joanne also played with Jasmine, fed her, took her shopping, and watched television with her. Bart testified that their three-bedroom home allowed Jasmine to have her own bedroom. Bart testified that after each visitation exchange from Velinda to Barbara, Jasmine suffered from a diaper rash but that the rash was healed before they returned her to Velinda.\nJoanne, who was 60 years old, testified that after her son died, she had a nervous breakdown and received social security disability payments for depression. She testified that in 2003, she also had open-heart surgeiy and that she suffered from rheumatoid arthritis, which limited her activity. Joanne testified that she took prescription antidepressants daily. Joanne testified that Barbara played outside with Jasmine, fed her, changed her diapers, and showed her much affection. Joanne testified that she, too, loved Jasmine.\nGretchen Williams, who worked with Barbara at St. Louis University Hospital, testified that after Jasmine was born until 2003, she visited Barbara and Velinda\u2019s home approximately once a month. Gretchen testified that the home smelled like cat urine, that piles of clothes were strewn throughout the home, and that Velinda was usually in bed, even though it was afternoon or early evening. Gretchen testified that she observed Barbara with Jasmine after Barbara had moved from Velinda\u2019s home and that Barbara was very attentive to Jasmine, changed her diaper regularly, and played with her. Gretchen testified that Barbara\u2019s home was clean.\nJudy Baker testified that she visited Barbara and Velinda\u2019s home when Jasmine was an infant, that the home smelled of cat urine, that dirty clothes were strewn throughout the home, and that Velinda was generally in bed, even in the afternoon. Judy testified that when Barbara lived in Velinda\u2019s home, Barbara primarily cared for Jasmine, although she also witnessed Jessica caring for Jasmine. Judy never witnessed Velinda caring for Jasmine. Judy testified that Barbara took good care of Jasmine and that Bart also cared for Jasmine by feeding her and playing with her.\nThe trial court took judicial notice of the adoption decree and, on September 15, 2004, entered its 18-page order. The trial court reviewed the factors in section 602(a) of the Dissolution Act (750 ILCS 5/602(a) (West 2002)) and determined that it was in Jasmine\u2019s best interests to award custody to Barbara. The court held that both parties were mentally and physically capable of having the custody of Jasmine. The court stated that it was concerned with the stability of Velinda\u2019s household, considering the major needs of her three older daughters. The trial court awarded Barbara the sole custody of Jasmine, awarded Velinda visitation on alternate weekends, holidays, and four weeks in the summer, and ordered Velinda to pay child support and provide health insurance for Jasmine. On October 14, 2004, Velinda filed her timely notice of appeal.\nANALYSIS\nStanding\nOn appeal, Velinda argues that the trial court should have used the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/0.01 et seq. (West 2002)) in determining the parties\u2019 standing and Jasmine\u2019s best interests, thereby giving Velinda, as Jasmine\u2019s blood relative, greater consideration when determining Jasmine\u2019s custody. Velinda fails to cite which section of the Adoption Act applied to guide the trial court in awarding the custody of Jasmine. Velinda merely argues that the trial court must apply the Adoption Act because the Dissolution Act cannot apply because it does not recognize same-sex marriages.\nA natural parent\u2019s superior right to the legal custody of her child is recognized and protected in the Dissolution Act by requiring a non-parent seeking custody to first meet the standing requirements of section 601(b)(2) of the Dissolution Act (750 ILCS 5/601(b)(2) (West 2002)), in order to be considered for custody under the best-interests standard without first establishing the parent\u2019s unfitness. In re Custody of Peterson, 112 Ill. 2d 48, 53 (1986). The standing requirement for a nonparent, however, is inapposite here. In the present case, Barbara and Velinda consented together to become Jasmine\u2019s adoptive parents, and the parental rights of Jasmine\u2019s biological parents were terminated. See In re M.M., 156 Ill. 2d 53, 62 (1993) (adoption constitutes a complete and permanent severance of legal and natural rights between biological parents and children, including the right to visitation and custody). As Jasmine\u2019s adoptive parents, both Velinda and Barbara had standing under the Dissolution Act to seek the custody of Jasmine. See 750 ILCS 5/601(b)(l)(ii) (West 2002) (a child-custody proceeding is commenced in court by a parent filing a petition for the custody of the child). Velinda\u2019s argument that Barbara did not have standing to pursue the custody of Jasmine is without merit.\nFurther, the statutory factors listed in section 602(a) of the Dissolution Act were relevant in determining Jasmine\u2019s custody, despite the fact that Velinda and Barbara were prohibited from marrying under Illinois law. See Hall v. Hall, 226 Ill. App. 3d 686, 689 (1991) (regardless of whether parents have ever been married, the statutory factors in the Dissolution Act are relevant to determine a child\u2019s custody).\nCustody\nVelinda argues that she had a superior right to custody, requiring a higher burden of proof by Barbara, because her biological daughter, Jessica, is Jasmine\u2019s biological mother. Velinda argues that the trial court\u2019s decision to award the custody of Jasmine to Barbara was therefore against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nIn child-custody cases, there is a strong and compelling presumption in favor of the result reached by the trial court, because in determining the child\u2019s best interests the trial court is in a superior position to observe and evaluate the witnesses\u2019 demeanor. In re Marriage of Doty, 255 Ill. App. 3d 1087, 1097 (1994). Accordingly, we will not reverse the trial court\u2019s determination concerning child-custody matters unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence or a clear abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Knoche, 322 Ill. App. 3d 297, 307 (2001). A trial court\u2019s finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence when a finding opposite to that reached by the trial court is clearly evident. In re Marriage of Knoche, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 307. The trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or, in view of all the circumstances, exceeds the bounds of reason and ignores recognized principles of law so that substantial injustice results. In re Marriage of Marsh, 343 Ill. App. 3d 1235, 1240 (2003).\nThe Dissolution Act requires that the court determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child, considering all the relevant factors, including: (1) the parents\u2019 wishes regarding the child\u2019s custody, (2) the child\u2019s wishes, if appropriate, (3) the child\u2019s interaction and interrelationship with her parents, siblings, and any other person who might significantly affect the child\u2019s best interests, (4) the child\u2019s adjustment to her home, school, and community, (5) the mental and physical health of all the individuals involved, (6) the physical violence or threat of physical violence by the child\u2019s potential custodian, whether directed against the child or another person, (7) the occurrence of ongoing abuse, and (8) each parent\u2019s willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child. 750 ILCS 5/602(a) (West 2002).\nIn child-custody disputes, there is a presumption that a natural parent\u2019s right or interest in the care, custody, and control of his or her child is superior to a third person\u2019s claim. In re Custody of Townsend, 86 Ill. 2d 502, 508 (1981). However, the presumption is not absolute and is only one of several factors courts use to resolve the controlling question of where the best interests of the child lie. In re Custody of Townsend, 86 Ill. 2d at 508.\nIn the present case, the dispute is not between a natural parent and a third party. Jasmine\u2019s biological parents\u2019 rights to her care, custody, and control were severed. The parties in this custody dispute are Barbara and Velinda, Jasmine\u2019s adoptive parents. When considering the factors under the Dissolution Act to determine custody in accordance with Jasmine\u2019s best interests (750 ILCS 5/602(a) (West 2002)), we cannot ignore the monumental proceeding that created the child-parent relationship between Jasmine and both Velinda and Barbara. After Jasmine\u2019s adoption, Barbara became, for all legal intents and purposes, Jasmine\u2019s mother. Although we will not ignore Jasmine\u2019s biological connections with the members of Velinda\u2019s household, we do not give them undue weight in determining whether Jasmine\u2019s best interests are served by placing her with Velinda or with Barbara.\nBoth Barbara and Velinda prefer to have the custody of Jasmine, and Jasmine is too young to identify a preference. See 750 ILCS 5/602(a)(l), (a)(2) (West 2002).\nWith regard to Jasmine\u2019s interaction and interrelationship with her parents, siblings, and any other person who might significantly affect her best interest (750 ILCS 5/602(a)(3) (West 2002)), we are mindful that Velinda\u2019s home houses Jasmine\u2019s biological mother, grandmother, and aunts. The evidence demonstrated that Jessica and Jasmine enjoyed a mother-daughter relationship, that Jasmine called Jessica \u201cmommy,\u201d and that Jessica cared for Jasmine while Jasmine resided in Velinda\u2019s home. The evidence also demonstrated, however, that Velinda\u2019s family experienced serious problems as a result of the three eldest daughters\u2019 sexual abuse by their father, that Velinda did not provide the primary care for Jasmine, and that although both Barbara\u2019s and Velinda\u2019s household incomes were sufficient to meet Jasmine\u2019s needs, Velinda\u2019s household income was less and also had to meet the needs of her other three daughters. See In re Marriage of Fahy, 208 Ill. App. 3d 677, 695 (1991) (the parties\u2019 relative economic positions must be considered to determine the child\u2019s best interests). Barbara\u2019s household income exceeded $80,000 per year, Barbara primarily cared for Jasmine when Jasmine visited Barbara, Barbara\u2019s flexible work hours allowed her to care for Jasmine during the majority of her visitation, and Barbara\u2019s husband Bart and her mother Joanne, both of whom lived in the home with Barbara, also cared for Jasmine. We accept the trial court\u2019s credibility determination that Velinda and her daughters\u2019 criticisms of Barbara were exaggerated, and we find that the evidence supported the trial court\u2019s conclusion that Jasmine\u2019s relationships in Barbara\u2019s household were nurturing and caring and in Jasmine\u2019s best interests.\nThe evidence demonstrated that Jasmine was well adjusted to both Barbara\u2019s home and Velinda\u2019s home. See 750 ILCS 5/602(a)(4) (West 2002). With regard to the mental and physical health of the individuals involved (see 750 ILCS 5/602(a)(5) (West 2002)), the evidence demonstrated that Jasmine suffered from diaper rash as a reaction to an antibiotic, that Jessica, in Velinda\u2019s home, believed that Jasmine did not require much sleep, and that Jasmine suffered from a breathing disorder, which would be exacerbated by smoke inhalation, although Barbara testified that she and Bart did not smoke in Jasmine\u2019s presence or in their home. Barbara testified that she no longer suffered from leukemia and was generally in good health. The evidence demonstrated that members of Velinda\u2019s household suffered sexual abuse by their father and that Anna suffered from depression, self-mutilation, and suicide ideation. The evidence supported the trial court\u2019s finding that both Barbara and Velinda were mentally and physically capable of having custody of Jasmine. The evidence also supported the trial court\u2019s concern about the mental health issues and the stability of Velinda\u2019s household.\nThe evidence supported the trial court\u2019s determinations that neither party was physically threatening (see 750 ILCS 5/602(a)(6) (West 2002)) and that there was no ongoing domestic abuse (see 750 ILCS 5/602(a)(7) (West 2002)). Both Barbara and Velinda facilitated the other\u2019s relationship with Jasmine before the hearing, pursuant to the court-ordered visitation schedule, and the evidence did not indicate that either party would fail to encourage the other\u2019s relationship with Jasmine. See 750 ILCS 5/602(a)(8) (West 2002).\nAfter considering the evidence in light of the relevant factors to determine Jasmine\u2019s best interests, we conclude that the trial court properly awarded the custody of Jasmine to Barbara.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Madison County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nKUEHN and CHAPMAN, JJ, concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HOPKINS" } ], "attorneys": [ "Billie L. Johnson, of Johnson & Anderson, of Edwardsville, for appellant.", "Curtis L. Blood, of Collinsville, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BARBARA CONNOR, Petitioner-Appellee, v. VELINDA C., Respondent-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201404\u20140657\nOpinion filed March 9, 2005.\nBillie L. Johnson, of Johnson & Anderson, of Edwardsville, for appellant.\nCurtis L. Blood, of Collinsville, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0315-01", "first_page_order": 333, "last_page_order": 344 }