delivered the opinion of the court:
Respondent, Michelle L., appeals from the judgment of the circuit court of Ogle County terminating her parental rights to her son Brandon L. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 10, 1999, a petition seeking the adjudication of wardship of Brandon pursuant to section 2 — 4(c) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/2 — 4(c) (West 2002)) was filed in the circuit court of Ogle County. The petition stated:
“On or about September 13, 1999 [sic], through no fault, neglect, or lack of concern of his parents, Michelle [L.] and Elmer [M.], said minor was without proper medical care necessary for his well[-] being in that the minor of [sic] July 9, 1999[,] was diagnosed with peri-orbital rhabdomyosarcoma of the right eye, a potentially lethal cancerous tumor, for which the minor’s parents are unable to provide the necessary hygiene and medication upon the minor’s discharge from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Children’s Hospital.”
On January 11, 2000, the trial court adjudicated Brandon a dependent child and placed guardianship with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), with power to place and power to consent to medical treatment if necessary. Respondent and Elmer were ordered to cooperate with DCFS and follow various conditions.
On April 25, 2002, the State brought a petition to terminate the parental rights of respondent and Elmer. The petition alleged that respondent and Elmer were unfit parents pursuant to section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/l(D) (West 2002)) and section 2 — 29 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2 — 29 (West 2002)) in that:
“(a) They have failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the minor, pursuant to 750 ILCS 50/1 D(b);
(b) They have substantially or repeatedly neglected the minor pursuant to 750 ILCS 50/1 D(d);
(c) They have failed to protect the minor from conditions within the environment injurious to the minor’s welfare, pursuant to 750 ILCS 50/1 D(g);
(d) They have demonstrated habitual drunkenness or addiction to drugs other than those prescribed by a physician for at least one year prior to the filing date of the Petition to Terminate Parental Rights, pursuant to 750 ILCS 50/1 D(k);
(e) They have failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the minor, pursuant to 750 ILCS 50/1 D(m)(i); and
(f) They have continuously or repeatedly failed to provide the minor with adequate food, clothing, or shelter, pursuant to 750 ILCS 50/1 D(o).”
On October 8, 2002, a fitness hearing was conducted. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that the State had proven the parents unfit only under grounds (a) and (e) of its petition.
On January 14, 2003, a best interest hearing was held. At the commencement of these proceedings, the guardian ad litem moved to exclude respondent during Brandon’s testimony. The guardian ad litem argued that respondent could be excluded pursuant to section 2 — 18(4)(d) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2 — 18(4)(d) (West 2002)). The State concurred with the guardian ad litem’s request, arguing that in camera testimony would ensure that Brandon would not be unjustly influenced during his testimony. Respondent objected, contending that section 2 — 18(4) (d) applied only to abuse and neglect cases. The trial court granted the State’s motion to exclude respondent during Brandon’s testimony. The trial court also ruled that after the State and Brandon’s guardian ad litem were finished questioning Brandon, the parents’ attorneys would be allowed a recess to confer with their clients before they questioned Brandon. Brandon testified outside of respondent’s presence, and in the presence of only the trial judge, court reporter, guardian ad litem, and counsel for each parent. Counsel for each parent had an opportunity to examine Brandon. Brandon testified, inter alia, that he wished to remain with his foster father. Respondent’s parental rights were terminated and this appeal followed. Only respondent appeals, because Elmer passed away during the pendency of the trial court proceedings.
II. ANALYSIS
Respondent’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error by not allowing her to be present during Brandon’s testimony She contends that she had both a statutory right and a due process right to be present. The State agrees that respondent had a statutory right to be present and that, therefore, the best interest determination of the trial court should be vacated and this cause should be remanded for a new best interest hearing. The State expresses no opinion regarding respondent’s constitutional argument. This court is not bound by the State’s confession of error. In re Guardianship of Muellner,
A. Respondent’s Statutory Right to Be Present
Section 1 — 5(1) of the Act states, in relevant part:
“Except as provided in this Section in paragraph (2) of Sections 2 — 22, 3 — 23, 4 — 20, 5 — 610 or 5 — 705, the minor who is the subject of the proceeding and his parents, guardian, legal custodian or responsible relative who are parties respondent have the right to be present, to be heard, to present evidence material to the proceedings, to cross-examine witnesses, to examine pertinent court files and records and also, although proceedings under this Act are not intended to be adversary in character, the right to be represented by counsel.” 705 ILCS 405/1 — 5(1) (West 2002).
None of the sections cited in the excerpt quoted above allow a court to exclude a parent from being present during a minor’s testimony. Here, however, the minor did testify in conformity with section 2 — 18(4)(d) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2 — 18(4)(d) (West 2002)), which indicates that a minor may testify without the parents being present:
“There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a minor is competent to testify in abuse or neglect proceedings. The court shall determine how much weight to give to the minor’s testimony, and may allow the minor to testify in chambers with only the court, the court reporter and attorneys for the parties present.” 705 ILCS 405/2 — 18(4)(d) (West 2002).
We do not, as the parties urge, read section 2 — 18(4)(d) to allow a minor to testify in camera in only abuse and neglect proceedings.
In construing the meaning of a statute, the primary objective of the court is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature. Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County,
In this case, we first note that section 2 — 18(1) discusses which rules of evidence are applicable to “this Article.” 705 ILCS 405/2— 18(1) (West 2002). Article II of the Act is entitled, “ABUSED, NEGLECTED OR DEPENDENT MINORS.” Therefore, we start our analysis by presuming that the evidentiary rules enunciated in section 2 — 18 are applicable in abuse, neglect, and dependency proceedings. Section 2 — 18(4) (d) mentions abuse and neglect proceedings only in the first sentence, which addresses competency to testify. The second sentence, which addresses the weighing of the minor’s testimony and the ability of the court to have the minor testify in camera, does not reference abuse and neglect proceedings. We read the plain meaning of this sentence as giving the trial court authority to conduct in camera examination of a minor in dependency proceedings as well as abuse and neglect proceedings. If we read the second sentence of section 2 — 18(4)(d) as the parties suggest, then one could argue that the trial court “shall determine how much weight to give to the minor’s testimony” only in abuse and neglect proceedings. We cannot see how testimony could be weighed only in abuse and neglect proceedings; Stripping the trial court of its ability to weigh testimony would be antithetical to its role as trier of fact in these cases. Clearly, the legislature could not have intended for such an absurd result.
We note that in construing the second sentence of section 2 — 18(4) (d), we make no determination as to the scope of the first sentence of that section. Our discussion of that sentence was merely to distinguish the wording of the two sentences. We further note that respondent has made no contention that the trial court’s order was an abuse of discretion, and, therefore, we do not express any opinion as to whether the trial court abused its discretion.
B. Respondent’s Due Process Rights
Having determined that the exclusion of respondent did not ran afoul of section 2 — 18(4) (d), we address respondent’s due process argument. “A parent has a fundamental due process right to the care, custody and control of his or her children, but that right is subject to termination.” In re Andrea F,
Taking into account all of the Mathews factors, we do not find that respondent’s due process rights were violated in this case. As to the first factor, a parent’s right to care, custody, and control of his or her child is a fundamental right that will not be lightly terminated by the courts. In re Andrea F.,
“Under the second factor, we must balance the rights of the child versus the rights of respondent to determine who should shoulder the risk of error at the termination and best interest hearings.” In re Travarius O.,
Finally, we recognize that the State has an interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of the child and in reducing the cost and burden of termination proceedings. In re Travarius O.,
The procedures used by the trial court adequately protected respondent’s interest, minimized the risk of compromising that interest, and at the same time accommodated the interest of the State. Accordingly, we find that respondent’s due process rights were not violated in this case.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the circuit court of Ogle County excluding respondent from the courtroom during the minor’s testimony.
Affirmed.
BYRNE and GILLERAN JOHNSON, JJ., concur.