In re J.S. and R.S., Minors
Dawn R., Respondent-Appellant The People of the State of Illinois Petitioner-Appellee,
Rule 23 Order filed June 6, 2013
Motion to publish allowed July 31, 2013
The facts presented to the trial court in the case of a neglect petition were sufficient to support the adjudication order finding that respondent’s children were neglected because of an environment that was injurious to their welfare, since the evidence established that respondent failed to protect her children from her boyfriend.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria County, Nos. 12-JA-77, 12-JA- 78; the Hon. Mark E. Gilles, Judge, presiding.
Louis P. Milot, of Peoria, for appellant.
Jerry Brady, State’s Attorney, of Peoria (Terry A. Mertel and Judith Z. Kelly, both of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
Justices Carter and Lytton concurred in the judgment and opinion.
¶ 1 The trial court found J.S. and R.S. neglected on the basis of an injurious environment. Respondent, Dawn R., the mother of the two children, appealed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶ 2 FACTS
¶ 3 On April 19, 2012, petitions were filed in the circuit court alleging that J.S. and R.S. were neglected minors by reason of an injurious environment. The petition with regard to J.S. alleged:
"A) On March 5, 2012, J.S., who is 13, but is cognitively delayed and functions at a 2nd or 3rd grade level, reported that respondent's paramour, Michael Tucker, put his finger in her mouth and tried to put his penis in her mouth and that Mr. Tucker also masturbated in front of her and the minor told DCFS of these incidents and later on March 8, 2012, when the police spoke to J.S., she would only report that Mr. Tucker placed his finger in her mouth and that she was told to 'stick to the story' and when respondent was questioned about coaching the minor, respondent denied it, following this on March 9, 2012, respondent admitted that she had told J.S. to lie regarding the sexual abuse and that respondent did this because Mr. Tucker had been violent in the past to her and threatened to kill someone if he went to jail; and
B) Respondent remained with Mr. Tucker and allowed him to reside with the minors even though he had been violent to ...