In re J.M.

2026 IL App (1st) 251802 No. 1-25-1802 First Division September 30, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ____________________________________________________________________________ In re J.M. and E.M., Minors ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Cook County. ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) Nos. 25 JA 192 ) 25 JA 193 v. ) ) L.M., ) Honorable ) Pamela Saindon, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE COBBS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Fitzgerald Smith and Howse concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 Respondent, L.M., is the biological mother of J.M., born July 2011, and E.M., born June 2018, both of whom are enrolled members of the Native Village of Kluti-Kaah. On August 12, 2025, following an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court found both minors abused and neglected under section 2-3(1)(b) and 2-3(2)(ii) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/2- 3(1)(b), (2)(ii) (West 2024)). On August 14, 2025, at the dispositional hearing, the court adjudged both minors wards of the court, placing J.M. under the guardianship of the Department of Children No. 1-25-1802 and Family Services (DCFS) and returning E.M. to her biological father under an order of protective service. ¶2 Although the evidence and the circuit court’s rulings concerned both minors, respondent develops no argument challenging the findings regarding J.M. Indeed, in the “ICWA Background and Standard of Review” section of her opening brief, respondent agrees with the circuit court’s decision to place J.M. in residential care but asks this court to “correct the [circuit] court by making clear that J.M.’s situation should be analyzed as a voluntary placement under 25 U.S.C. § 1913(b).” We acknowledge respondent’s agreement regarding J.M. Accordingly, any challenges to the circuit court’s adjudication and disposition rulings that relate to J.M. are waived. See Gallagher v. Lenart, 226 Ill. 2d 208, 229 (2007) (waiver is consensual, arising out of the intentional relinquishment of a known right). However, we decline respondent’s entreaty to “correct the [circuit] court.” ¶3 Respondent raises two principal contentions here on appeal, both of which pertain to E.M. only. First, she argues that the circuit court erred in adjudicating E.M. abused and neglected and entering its dispositional order because the State failed to satisfy the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978’s (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (2024)) clear and convincing evidence requirement. Second, respondent contends that the circuit court’s finding that DCFS made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family 1was against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶4 I. BACKGROUND 1 Throughout this disposition, we use the term “Indian family” consistent with respondent’s characterization of her heritage and claims under ICWA. -2- No. 1-25-1802 ¶5 The following factual summary is derived from the pleadings, adjudicatory and dispositional hearings, and exhibits contained in the record. 2 ¶6 A. Prehearing Proceedings ¶7 On March 14, 2025, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship and motions for temporary custody concerning both E.M. and J.M. The petitions alleged that the minors were neglected and abused pursuant to the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b), (2)(ii) (West 2024)). The petition concerning J.M. additionally alleged neglect due to a lack of necessary care. See id. § 2- 3(1)(a). The State alleged the following facts in support of its petition and motion regarding the minors: “Mother has prior history with child protective services in Kentucky and Ohio. In December of 2024 an intact case was opened due to this minor’s sibling’s untreated mental health issues and domestic violence issues in the home. Mother is non-compliant with services including completing a drug and alcohol assessment. This minor’s sibling is currently psychiatrically hospitalized due to self-harming behaviors. This minor’s sibling has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. This minor’s sibling has a history of psychiatric hospitalizations and suicide attempts. This minor’s sibling reports that she does not feel safe at home due to mother’s excessive drinking. Per family, mother has untreated mental health issues, a history of abusing alcohol and of exhibiting violent behaviors. This minor’s sibling reports being present in a hotel room when mother was prostituting herself. This minor was also present Kory S. (Kory) is the putative father of J.M. A default order was entered against Kory on July 2 16, 2025. Alex H. (Alex), who was identified during the proceedings as E.M.’s biological father, has custody of E.M. under an order of protective service. Neither father is a party to this appeal. -3- No. 1-25-1802 during this incident. Putative father’s whereabouts are unknown, and paternity has not been established.” ¶8 On the same day, the State filed motions for temporary custody of the minors. In an affidavit accompanying the motions, the State averred that (1) J.M. and E.M. may be “Indian child[ren]” as defined in ICWA, (2) the last known address of the children and mother is Chicago, Illinois, (3) neither the residence nor domicile of the children is on an Indian reservation, (4) “on information and belief, the tribal affiliation and band of the [children] and of the parents and/or the Indian Custodian is: Kluti-Kaah,” and (5) “[t]here is probable cause that the minor[s] [are] neglected, abused and/or dependent pursuant to 705 ILCS 405/2-3 or 2-4 as detailed in the Petition for Adjudication of Wardship and the Motion for Temporary Custody.” The State additionally averred that the children are at risk of imminent physical damage or harm if not removed from the parent or Indian custodian due to the following: (a) active efforts could not be made to avoid removal of the child on an emergency basis from the parent or Indian custodian or (b) active efforts, which have been offered to the parent or Indian custodian, have thus far been unsuccessful in avoiding the need to remove the child from the parents or Indian custodian. ¶9 The circuit court appointed the Cook County Public Guardian as attorney and guardian ad litem (GAL) for the minors and the Cook County Public Defender to represent respondent. During the temporary custody hearing, a representative from the Native Village of Kluti-Kaah (Tribe) appeared, and the court found that ICWA applied because E.M. and J.M. were members of the Tribe pursuant to ICWA. The court further found there was probable cause that E.M. and J.M. were abused and neglected, that immediate and urgent necessity required their removal, and that emergency removal was necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm. The court placed the minors in the temporary custody of DCFS. The court held several subsequent hearings -4- No. 1-25-1802 as required by ICWA and found that the emergency removal of J.M. and E.M. was necessary to prevent physical damage or harm. ¶ 10 E.M. was placed with respondent’s friend, Jessica Hale. Initially, J.M. remained hospitalized but was later placed at Allendale residential treatment facility. The court entered several orders finding that DCFS had made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. Respondent filed a motion to transfer the proceedings to the Tribe but later withdrew. The Tribe subsequently chose not to intervene. ¶ 11 B. Adjudicatory Hearing ¶ 12 The circuit court conducted the adjudicatory hearing on August 11 and 12, 2025. Respondent did not appear on the first day, but her attorney represented that she had notice and did not request a continuance. ¶ 13 The following summarizes the testimony of the witnesses who appeared at the adjudicatory hearing. ¶ 14 Jessica Hale ¶ 15 Hale testified that she had known respondent for approximately seven years and had cared for the minors on several occasions. In 2022, respondent told Hale that the minors would live with relatives in Alaska because another state’s department of children and family services had become involved with the family. ¶ 16 In August 2023, respondent told Hale that she had an outstanding Mississippi warrant arising from a driving under the influence offense and was having difficulty finding employment. Respondent asked Hale to care for the minors while she attempted to regain stability. Hale allowed -5- No. 1-25-1802 respondent to live in a vacant property she owned in Kentucky while the minors lived with Hale in Illinois. ¶ 17 The minors remained with Hale for approximately five months. Respondent’s contact with them was sporadic, and she did not provide a definite plan for their return. Respondent told Hale that she was living with a man upon whom she had called the police for domestic violence, but she declined to disclose her location. While living with Hale, J.M. disclosed that respondent drank, yelled at her, and had expelled her from the home in Ohio. Hale obtained a mental-health assessment for J.M. after observing self-harming behavior and a severe emotional reaction following a telephone call with respondent. ¶ 18 The minors returned to respondent’s care near the end of December 2023. Hale did not see them again until DCFS contacted her in March 2025 and asked whether she could serve as their caregiver. ¶ 19 Officer Adrian Enriquez ¶ 20 Cicero police officer Adrian Enriquez testified that he responded to a domestic call at respondent’s Cicero residence on January 4, 2025. Respondent reported that she had argued with her boyfriend and that he had gestured toward her with a knife while J.M. watched. When the officers could not locate the knife, J.M. became distraught, overturned a table, covered her ears, and repeatedly insisted that the knife had been present. Respondent argued with the officers, did not attempt to console J.M., and declined an offer to obtain a medical evaluation for J.M. ¶ 21 Officer Enriquez described the residence as resembling a “hoarder’s home.” Trash was piled in the kitchen, items were stacked in the corners, the floors were sticky, and the residence smelled strongly of trash and body odor. ¶ 22 Officer Gustavo Gonzalez -6- No. 1-25-1802 ¶ 23 Cicero police officer Gustavo Gonzalez testified that he responded to a domestic disturbance at the Cicero residence on December 8, 2024. Respondent reported that her boyfriend had pushed her to the floor after forcing his way into their room to retrieve some paperwork from a drawer. A cell phone recording, however, depicted respondent as the aggressor while the boyfriend remained calm. Both minors were present. ¶ 24 While the officer was at the residence, J.M. experienced an “anxiety attack.” Gonzalez attempted to calm her, but respondent did not assist him or otherwise respond to J.M.’s distress. Gonzalez described the residence as extremely dirty and foul smelling, with old food, dirty dishes, and insects. He contacted DCFS because of the condition of the home and respondent’s lack of response to J.M.’s apparent distress. ¶ 25 Briana Lane ¶ 26 Briana Lane testified that she was employed by Hephzibah Children’s Association as an intact family caseworker and was assigned to respondent and the minors in December 2024. She explained that intact services are voluntary supports recommended by DCFS to address the circumstances that brought a family to the agency’s attention while allowing the family to remain together. Her agency accepted the case because of concerns involving medical neglect. She assessed the entire family as needing services. ¶ 27 Lane recommended that respondent complete a mental-health assessment, participate in individual therapy, and enroll in a parenting program. Respondent did not begin those services because she was not initially matched with providers and the agency prioritized the family’s housing instability and the environmental condition of the home. Lane worked with the family from December 2024 until DCFS took protective custody in March 2025. -7- No. 1-25-1802 ¶ 28 Lane visited the family weekly, primarily at the Cicero residence. Respondent and the minors lived in the basement unit. Lane testified that it was her belief that respondent’s cousin and her cousin’s friend also lived in the residence. She observed the conditions of the home as very poor with food and trash throughout and advised respondent that it was environmentally inappropriate for the minors. Respondent told Lane that the mess was not hers and that she did not believe she was responsible for cleaning it. Respondent reported that she did not feel safe in the home, that there were frequent arguments with the other occupants, and that there was an incident in which someone pulled a knife on her. ¶ 29 Lane attempted to locate safer housing for respondent and arranged an appointment and transportation with Beds Plus. According to Lane, respondent did not want J.M. to come to the appointment but to instead stay home with their belongings so that they would not be put out on the street. Lane also helped with storage expenses and provided Ventra cards, school uniforms, holiday gift cards, and other material support. ¶ 30 Lane also monitored the minors’ educational needs. She was concerned about E.M.’s attendance because E.M. was sometimes home during school hours. Respondent claimed that E.M. was ill, although Lane did not observe signs of illness. Lane did not observe physical abuse or neglect of E.M. at the shelter, but E.M. was guarded and would not speak with Lane outside respondent’s presence. On the two occasions when Lane briefly spoke with her alone, E.M. was largely nonverbal and answered by nodding or shaking her head. ¶ 31 Lane remained concerned about the minors’ safety because respondent admitted that she could not consistently supervise J.M. or determine whether J.M. might harm herself. Lane also testified that respondent sometimes slept while the minors were home and had not consistently followed through with housing and service recommendations. -8- No. 1-25-1802 ¶ 32 In March 2025, Lane attended a meeting at the shelter at which DCFS attempted to establish a voluntary safety plan. Respondent opposed the plan and the prospect of protective custody, stating that she did not want the minors placed with a White family. When told that protective custody would be taken if she declined the plan, respondent attempted to run away with E.M. DCFS thereafter took protective custody, and the intact case was closed. ¶ 33 On cross-examination, Lane reiterated that respondent had agreed with J.M.’s hospitalization and need for psychiatric placement. She also acknowledged that respondent removed E.M. from the unsafe Cicero residence, moved with her to a shelter, and worked with a case manager there. Lane did not observe signs of abuse or neglect to E.M. at the shelter, although E.M. did not affirmatively report that she felt safe. ¶ 34 Lane clarified that, after respondent and E.M. entered the shelter, the agency continued weekly monitoring and provided respondent with assistance in searching for employment. Lane explained that many permanent-housing opportunities depended on respondent’s income. She also stated that the employment assistance provided by Hephzibah Children’s Association consisted primarily of the Ventra bus card and that no additional housing referrals were made after respondent entered the shelter because the agency intended to work with the shelter’s case manager on longer-term housing options. ¶ 35 In response to questions from the court, Lane clarified that the agency initially focused on correcting the family’s housing and environmental problems before requiring respondent to begin therapy and parenting services. The intact case and referrals were expected to continue, but those plans ended after the additional investigation resulted in protective custody and respondent stated that she no longer wished to participate in intact services. ¶ 36 Carol Washington -9- No. 1-25-1802 ¶ 37 Carol Washington testified that she was a DCFS child protection specialist and was assigned as the mandated response investigator on February 11, 2025. She investigated an allegation of sexual exploitation involving both minors. The report stated that the minors were present in a hotel room while respondent engaged in sexual activity with an unidentified man in exchange for money. ¶ 38 Washington interviewed J.M. at Hartgrove Behavioral Health Hospital (Hartgrove) on February 11, 2025. J.M. described the October 2024 hotel stay during which she and E.M. were in one bed while respondent and an unknown man occupied another. Respondent told J.M. that the man would give her money because the family needed it. J.M. did not see sexual activity but heard it while facing away under the covers. After interviewing J.M., Washington completed her role as the mandated worker and transferred the investigation to the primary investigator, Latanya Russell. ¶ 39 On cross-examination, Washington acknowledged that J.M. did not know the location of the hotel, did not witness the sexual acts, was not involved in them, and was not approached by the man. ¶ 40 Latanya Russell ¶ 41 Russell testified that she was a DCFS child protection advanced specialist and became the primary investigator on February 11, 2025. In addition to the sexual exploitation allegation, the investigation assessed the risk of physical injury and whether the environment was injurious to the minors’ welfare, as well as allegations of medical neglect concerning J.M. Respondent denied the allegations. Additionally, she stated that the minors’ fathers were not involved. She reported that the family moved to Illinois in October or November 2024 to obtain housing and employment resources and that J.M. had recently attempted suicide by ingesting medication. Respondent stated - 10 - No. 1-25-1802 that J.M. had not remained out of the hospital long enough to begin the recommended follow-up services. ¶ 42 Russell confirmed that the family had prior DCFS involvement and that an intact family case remained open through Hephzibah Children’s Association, with Lane serving as the assigned caseworker. Russell maintained contact with the intact services team and learned that the family had child protection histories in other states. Because respondent disclosed prior child protection involvement, Russell requested records from the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. Russell explained that respondent was initially hostile and defensive and that she sought the records, in part, to understand respondent’s prior experiences with child protection agencies. She also obtained Cicero police records, requested an out-of-state lead report, sought a toxicology screen for respondent, and requested an emergency clinical staffing for J.M. She considered those materials during the investigation. ¶ 43 Russell interviewed J.M. privately at Hartgrove on March 8, 2025. J.M. repeated that she had heard respondent engage in sexual activity for money in a hotel and stated that she had witnessed an unknown man strike respondent in Kentucky, leaving bruises on respondent’s face, arms, and shoulders. ¶ 44 Russell also attempted to interview E.M. at the shelter. The shelter case manager was present, and respondent remained outside the door. E.M. was guarded and answered only questions concerning her age and grade. ¶ 45 Russell also spoke with respondent by telephone on March 8, 2025, regarding respondent’s departure from the shelter. Respondent explained that she had become overwhelmed by J.M.’s self-harming behavior. On March 12, 2025, Russell met respondent at the shelter to establish a safety plan while DCFS completed its investigation. Respondent stated that she would not agree - 11 - No. 1-25-1802 to the proposed plan because she lacked family in Illinois and was a member of the Tribe. After respondent refused the safety plan, the agency made a critical decision to take protective custody of both minors. Russell testified that the decision was based on the totality of the investigation, including the family’s in-state and out-of-state history, rather than respondent’s refusal alone. DCFS notified the Tribe of the protective custody. ¶ 46 Sarah White ¶ 47 Sarah White testified that she had been employed by the Tribe as an ICWA advocate since July 2022 and had grown up in the Copper River Basin in Alaska, where the Tribe is located. She completed child welfare and qualified-expert training and maintained the required refresher courses. White explained that she worked with child protection agencies, advised the Tribe concerning child welfare cases, and helped tribal members obtain resources intended to permit parents to succeed. The circuit court qualified her, without objection, as an expert concerning whether continued parental custody was likely to cause serious physical or emotional damage and the prevailing social and cultural standards of the Tribe. ¶ 48 White testified that she first became involved with respondent in August 2022, when respondent requested assistance sending the minors to their grandparents because she lacked stable housing and was leaving a harmful relationship. White provided respondent with information concerning counseling, employment, and mental-health services for J.M. ¶ 49 Respondent contacted White on several occasions seeking assistance for J.M.’s suicidal ideation and self-harming behavior. In 2024 and again in January 2025, respondent asked White to help locate inpatient psychiatric treatment for J.M. White researched available providers and supplied respondent with telephone numbers, although her ability to assist was limited because she - 12 - No. 1-25-1802 was in Alaska and was unfamiliar with the services available where respondent was living. White described respondent as extremely concerned about the seriousness of J.M.’s mental health needs. ¶ 50 White learned of the Illinois proceedings through DCFS as well as from respondent. She participated in calls and staffings and reviewed hospital records, caseworker assessments, and Illinois investigative files. After reviewing the most current documentation, White believed E.M. could transition back to living with respondent if she were able to secure stable housing. ¶ 51 White testified, however, that when protective custody was taken in March 2025, leaving the minors with respondent was likely to result in serious physical or emotional damage. White believed respondent needed stable housing and continued services before the minors could safely return to her. She stated that, at the time of removal, the minors would have been at imminent risk of physical damage or harm if they stayed. ¶ 52 On cross-examination, White described the Tribe’s cultural practices. She explained that the Tribe was primarily nomadic and traditionally moved according to seasonal resources, relied upon extended family and community child rearing, and did not historically emphasize private bedrooms or nuclear-family living arrangements. She further discussed the history of Native children being removed from their families and placed in boarding schools and the importance of culturally responsive services. White testified that those historical experiences were relevant when providing child welfare services to Native families. ¶ 53 According to White, services lacking cultural sensitivity could be less effective because recovery often required Native individuals to reconnect with their community, language, traditional practices, and identity. White explained that traditional Tribal approaches to mental health concerns were community based and focused on supporting a struggling parent while preserving the family rather than immediately removing the children. - 13 - No. 1-25-1802 ¶ 54 White nevertheless distinguished those cultural practices from unsafe housing and domestic violence. She testified that a child without a stable and safe residence could suffer physical injury or lasting emotional trauma. She stated that, if respondent obtained stable housing and continued her services, the minors would not be in imminent physical or emotional harm. ¶ 55 White acknowledged that she had never personally interviewed E.M. Her opinions were based on her review of the records, participation in staffings, communications with respondent and DCFS, and knowledge of the Tribe’s cultural standards. White was aware of the sexual exploitation allegation and that E.M. had been present in the hotel room at the time. She also acknowledged that part of her role was to identify and involve the minors’ fathers. White had asked respondent about the fathers on several occasions, but respondent consistently stated that she did not know the identity of E.M.’s father and that J.M.’s father had chosen not to be involved. ¶ 56 On redirect examination, White testified that the Tribe elected not to officially intervene because it could not provide respondent and the minors with the necessary services from Alaska. ¶ 57 White reiterated that she did not believe there would be an imminent risk of physical or emotional harm if respondent continued with her services and secured stable housing. She explained that respondent’s housing was an important component of any decision to return the minors and that the residence would need to be identified and verified as safe. ¶ 58 On recross-examination, White explained that stable housing would ameliorate the risks of physical and emotional harm to E.M. The physical risks associated with homelessness included illness, injury, and abuse by third parties, while the emotional risk arose from the trauma of repeatedly lacking a safe and stable home. ¶ 59 Nontestimonial Evidence ¶ 60 Over respondent’s objection, the following nontestimonial evidence was also admitted. - 14 - No. 1-25-1802 ¶ 61 The State offered certified records from Hamilton County Job and Family Services (HCJFS) in Ohio concerning the family’s prior child-protection involvement. Respondent objected that the records did not fall within section 2-18(4)(a) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-18(4)(a) (West 2024)) because HCJFS was not licensed by Illinois. The circuit court overruled the objection and admitted the certified records, reasoning that the entity performed child-welfare functions on behalf of children and that excluding relevant out-of-state records would be inconsistent with the Act. ¶ 62 According to the Ohio records, in April 2021, following respondent’s tonsil surgery and while she slept, then two-year-old E.M. ingested respondent’s prescription medication. E.M. was admitted to a pediatric intensive-care unit with an elevated heart rate and blood pressure and required medication for agitation. The records further showed that respondent was extremely upset at the hospital and expressed that she was “discriminated against.” Ohio authorities substantiated an allegation of neglect and implemented a safety plan. Respondent initially resisted services and random drug testing but later cooperated, and the minors were returned to her care in August 2021. ¶ 63 In December 2022, Ohio authorities opened another investigation after then 11-year-old J.M. reported that respondent became intoxicated, pinned her down, and expelled her from the home without shoes, socks, or a coat. Ohio police observed respondent as significantly intoxicated. Both minors later reported to an HCJFS caseworker that they did not feel safe when respondent drank. Respondent also reported to an HCJFS caseworker that a former boyfriend had grabbed her by the throat and struck her while the minors were present and acknowledged that she had begun binge drinking and needed treatment. The investigation closed after the minors went to stay with their grandparents and respondent reported that she would enter treatment. - 15 - No. 1-25-1802 ¶ 64 The State also introduced certified records from Hartgrove and Loyola University Medical Center concerning J.M.’s psychiatric treatment, as well as photographs of J.M.’s self-inflicted injuries. The records reflected that J.M. was hospitalized in January 2025 after attempting suicide by ingesting medication. J.M. reported that she did not feel safe in the home because the adults with whom the family lived were verbally and physically abusive toward respondent and one of them threatened respondent with a knife. Respondent acknowledged that the incident had triggered J.M.’s suicide attempt. ¶ 65 C. Adjudicatory Hearing Ruling ¶ 66 On August 12, 2025, the circuit court found by clear and convincing evidence that both minors were neglected due to an injurious environment under section 2-3(1)(b) of the Act and abused due to a substantial risk of physical injury under section 2-3(2)(ii) of the Act. See id. § 2- 3(1)(b), (2)(ii). The court found the witnesses credible and determined that respondent had failed to provide the minors with a safe and stable environment, which would likely lead to imminent physical damage or harm to them. ¶ 67 The court relied on the family’s recurring housing instability, the environmental condition of the Cicero residence, the minors’ exposure to domestic violence, respondent’s failure to respond appropriately to J.M.’s mental health crises, and respondent’s inability to provide consistent supervision. ¶ 68 Turning specifically to requirements under ICWA, the court relied on White’s qualified- expert testimony in conjunction with the testimony of the lay witnesses. Based on White’s opinion and the evidence concerning the family’s living conditions, recurrent housing instability, domestic violence, and respondent’s handling of J.M.’s mental health crises, the court found that custody of the minors by respondent would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage. - 16 - No. 1-25-1802 ¶ 69 The court agreed with respondent that J.M.’s description of the hotel incident had not been corroborated by E.M. or other evidence. It expressly declined to consider that allegation in finding the minors abused and neglected. The court nevertheless found the remaining evidence sufficient to establish that the minors’ abuse and neglect resulted from respondent’s conduct. It further found by clear and convincing evidence that continued custody by respondent or another custodian was likely to result in imminent physical damage or harm to the minors. Also, during the hearing, the court declared that Alex was a noncustodial parent of E.M. At the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, the matter proceeded immediately to a dispositional hearing. ¶ 70 D. Dispositional Hearing ¶ 71 At the dispositional hearing, the court took judicial notice of five exhibits offered by the State and the findings entered during the adjudicatory hearing. Without objection, the court admitted the integrated assessment; the May 7, May 23, and July 16, 2025, status reports regarding respondent and the minors; and respondent’s July 31, 2025, therapy report. The court also took judicial notice of its orders entered on April 11, May 7, May 30, June 17, and July 17, 2025, which contained findings regarding DCFS’s efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. ¶ 72 The following summarizes the testimony of the witnesses who appeared at the dispositional hearing. ¶ 73 Sarah White ¶ 74 White’s testimony at the dispositional hearing was similar to that offered at the adjudicatory hearing. We recount here only those aspects of White’s testimony at the dispositional hearing that differed from her testimony at the adjudicatory hearing and are relevant to the court’s disposition ruling. - 17 - No. 1-25-1802 ¶ 75 White was again qualified, without objection, as an expert witness under ICWA. She testified that, after the minors were taken into protective custody, she continued receiving updates, attended court proceedings and some treatment staffings, and reviewed the family’s reports. She also provided DCFS with information and resources concerning the family’s Native heritage. ¶ 76 White reviewed respondent’s therapy report and acknowledged that respondent was actively participating in individual therapy and parenting services. Respondent, however, had left the domestic violence shelter, and White did not know where she was living. White explained that respondent’s residence would need to be identified and verified as safe and that respondent would need to continue participating in services before E.M. could safely return to her. Based on respondent’s circumstances at the time of disposition, White opined that returning E.M. to respondent without verifiably safe housing and continued engagement in services would likely result in serious physical or emotional damage to the child. ¶ 77 White further testified that E.M. remained with fictive kin and was participating in individual therapy. White explained that her initial goal had been reunification between E.M. and respondent, but that goal expanded to include reunification with Alex after DCFS identified him as E.M.’s father. If E.M. could not return to respondent, the Tribe preferred that she be placed with Alex. White supported a gradual transition because E.M. had expressed reservations and was only beginning to develop a relationship with Alex. White acknowledged that she had not personally spoken with Alex and that her recommendation was based on the information contained in the reports she reviewed. White acknowledged that respondent faced barriers to accessing services, including transportation difficulties, changes in residence, and distrust of the child welfare system. White agreed that DCFS had attempted to address those barriers and described the agency’s efforts as imperfect but a good attempt to assist the family. She also explained that frequent contact with - 18 - No. 1-25-1802 parents and siblings was culturally important for Native children and recommended two or three in-person visits each week, when clinically and practically possible, in addition to telephone or video contact. ¶ 78 Simone Thompson ¶ 79 Simone Thompson testified that she had served as the family’s DCFS caseworker since March 2025. Regarding E.M., Thompson testified that E.M. remained with her original fictive-kin caregivers, with whom Thompson continued to communicate and considered to provide E.M. safe and appropriate environment. E.M. participated in weekly individual therapy and had begun discussing some of the environments in which she had previously lived. Thompson testified that E.M. did not have any diagnosed mental-health condition at that time. ¶ 80 Thompson described respondent’s integrated assessment, which recommended that respondent participate in individual therapy, a domestic violence program, the Nurturing Parenting Program, a psychiatric assessment and treatment, a substance-abuse assessment, and housing services. Respondent began individual therapy in April 2025. She also completed a domestic violence assessment and chose to obtain services through Mutual Ground rather than the agency’s original referral from Anew. Thompson was unsure at the time whether Mutual Ground would satisfy the DCFS recommendation. After respondent left Mutual Ground, her domestic violence services remained incomplete. However, Thompson stated that Anew was still available to her if she was willing. With respect to the Nurturing Parenting Program, respondent was currently engaged and participating consistently. ¶ 81 Regarding a psychiatric assessment, respondent told Thompson that she had a psychiatrist. However, Thompson was waiting to hear back on whether respondent received a psychiatric - 19 - No. 1-25-1802 evaluation. As it pertained to psychiatric treatment, Thompson learned that respondent had started taking medication and “had a diagnosis” for the first time. ¶ 82 Respondent also completed a substance abuse assessment and tested negative through Mutual Ground, but DCFS found the assessor had no credentials and therefore referred respondent for another assessment. That assessment had to be rescheduled because of the court hearing. ¶ 83 Thompson testified that housing remained a significant concern. After respondent left Illinois for Florida, Thompson attempted to set up services for respondent in Florida. However, respondent again reached out to Thompson, stating that she wanted to return to Illinois. DCFS subsequently paid for the flight, and respondent reentered Mutual Ground’s shelter. ¶ 84 On July 25, 2025, Thompson learned from respondent’s case manager that respondent left the shelter on July 15, 2025, reporting that other residents triggered her post-traumatic stress disorder. Respondent subsequently tol