In re T.C. ( 2021 )

2021 IL App (2d) 200691No. 2-20-0691
Opinion filed April 13, 2021
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
In re T.C., a Minor ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of Lake County.
)
) No. 19-JA-200
)
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) Honorable
Petitioner-Appellee, v. Brittany W., ) Valerie Boettle Ceckowski,
Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Jorgensen and Schostok concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Respondent, Brittany W., appeals from the trial court’s ruling that her son, T.C., is a
neglected minor. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for
further proceedings.
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 Respondent gave birth to T.C. in August 2019. In September 2019, the State filed a petition
for adjudication of wardship and temporary custody, alleging that T.C. was (1) dependent in that
respondent could not provide proper care for him due to respondent’s mental disability and
cognitive impairments and (2) neglected in that his environment was injurious to his welfare in
that respondent is not mentally capable of providing proper care for him. A putative father was
identified, with DNA testing pending.
2021 IL App (2d) 200691¶4 Following a shelter-care hearing, a temporary custody order was entered. As probable
cause to believe that T.C. was neglected and dependent, the court found that respondent was
mentally incapable of providing proper care in that “she suffers from mental illness and epilepsy
that is untreated.”
¶5 During the ensuing nine months, three additional putative fathers were identified, including
Simon Gorelik. DNA testing indicated that Gorelik was T.C.’s biological father. On July 7, 2020,
the trial court entered an order establishing Gorelik as the father and stating, “he has been advised
that he now has all the rights and responsibilities as father and has waived a hearing in this matter
through his attorney.”
¶6 On August 11, 2020, a proposed order labeled “Findings and Order of Adjudication” was
submitted to the court. The order contemplated (1) Gorelik’s admission to the two counts in the
State’s petition, (2) the court’s acceptance of both Gorelik’s admission and the factual basis set
forth in the order, and (3) the court’s finding, based on the admission and the factual basis, that
both counts of the neglect petition were proven by a preponderance of the evidence. An order was
entered setting pretrial for September 10, 2020, and requiring that any motions regarding a
stipulation to the adjudication be filed prior to the pretrial date.
¶7 On August 25, 2020, respondent filed a “Motion to Refuse Proposed Admission,” attaching
as an exhibit a copy of the proposed findings and order of adjudication. Respondent’s motion
alleged, inter alia, that respondent’s and Gorelik’s relationship was purely physical, that they had
no prior or subsequent relationship, that Gorelik was not a mental health professional and had no
personal knowledge of respondent’s mental health history, and that Gorelik was biased because he
did not want respondent to take the pregnancy to term.
-2-
2021 IL App (2d) 200691¶8 Both the State and the guardian ad litem (GAL) filed responses to respondent’s motion,
arguing that Gorelik’s admission, coupled with exhibits offered by the State regarding
respondent’s mental health were sufficient for the court to make a finding of neglect. The State’s
exhibits were documentation of a Department of Children and Family Services investigation, a
“Medical Psychology Services Neuropsychology Discharge Summary,” and a psychological
evaluation. Respondent replied to the responses, arguing that Gorelik’s admission was deficient
because he lacked sufficient knowledge to make the admission and that the acceptance of the
admission would violate respondent’s rights to due process. Respondent also requested the
opportunity to cross-examine Gorelik.
¶9 Prior to the court’s ruling on respondent’s motion, Gorelik filed a response to the motion,
stating, inter alia, that the factual basis for the proposed findings and adjudication “does not rely
on any personal knowledge of [Gorelik],” the facts alleged in the proposed findings and
adjudication “are very specific and do not include any statements or actions of [Gorelik],” and
Gorelik “is not the source of any of the statements relied upon by State” in its proposed order.
¶ 10 On October 29, 2020, the trial court denied respondent’s motion and accepted Gorelik’s
admission. The court also admitted, over respondent’s objection, the exhibits offered by the State.
The court entered its findings and order of adjudication, finding T.C. to be both neglected and
dependent, and on November 12, 2020, it entered a dispositional order over respondent’s objection,
making T.C. a ward of the court.
¶ 11 Respondent timely appealed.
¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 13 On appeal, respondent challenges only the trial court’s adjudication of neglect. First, she
argues that Gorelik’s admission was not knowing and voluntary, because the record “is devoid of
-3-
2021 IL App (2d) 200691any evidence that [Gorelik] had been informed of the nature of the proceedings or the consequence
of his admission.” Respondent cites two cases in which the consequence of the respondent parent’s
admission was loss of custody of the child. See In re Moore, 87 Ill. App. 3d 1117 (1980), and In re
Smith, 77 Ill. App. 3d 1048 (1979). She also cites In re Johnson, 102 Ill. App. 3d 1005, 1012-13
(1981), in which this court stated that
“for the admission of a parent to be valid in the adjudicatory phase of a neglect proceeding,
it must be apparent from the record that the parent making the admission understood the
consequences of his admission—that a finding of neglect gives the court jurisdiction of the
minor who then becomes subject to the dispositional powers of the court.”
¶ 14 The State responds that respondent lacks standing to make this claim, citing Lebron v.
Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 252-53 (2010), for the proposition that the “doctrine
of standing is to insure that issues are only before the [c]ourt when raised by parties with a real
interest in the resolution of the issue.” The State further asserts that, standing aside, the record
shows that Gorelik was admonished of the consequences of his admission and stipulation.
¶ 15 The State’s argument that respondent lacks standing to challenge Gorelik’s admission was
not raised in the trial court and is accordingly forfeited. See Nationwide Advantage Mortgage Co.
v. Ortiz, 2012 IL App (1st) 112755, ¶ 24. Forfeiture aside, the argument that a party lacks standing
to represent his or her own interests is patently without merit. At the same time, we reject
respondent’s contention that “the record is devoid of any evidence that [Gorelik] had been
informed of the nature of the proceedings or the consequence of his admission.” We have held that
the trial court is not required to admonish a respondent in a termination-of-parental-rights
proceeding regarding the consequence of his or her admission to unfitness or to inquire regarding
the voluntariness of his or her admission. See In re Tamera W., 2012 IL App (2d) 111131, ¶ 34.
-4-
2021 IL App (2d) 200691However, a neglect stipulation “must be intelligently and voluntarily made; that is, it must be
apparent from the record that the party making the admission was aware of the consequences of
his admission.” Johnson, 102 Ill. App. 3d at 1013 (record was “completely devoid of any indication
that [the respondent] understood the consequences of his admission [to neglect].”
¶ 16 Here, Gorelik filed his appearance through counsel five days after his DNA test indicated
that he was the biological father, and he was represented throughout the proceedings. A month
after filing his appearance, an order was entered establishing him as the biological father and
stating that he “has been advised that he now has all the rights and responsibilities as father and
has waived a hearing in this matter through his attorney.” In his response to the motion to refuse
his admission, Gorelik stated that he was prepared to stipulate to the entry of the proposed findings
and order of adjudication. The record sufficiently supports a finding that Gorelik entered his
admission knowingly and voluntarily and was prepared to relinquish any custody interest in T.C.
¶ 17 Next, respondent argues that the court erred in accepting Gorelik’s admission as a basis for
a finding of neglect, because he had no direct knowledge of the facts to which he was admitting.
The State responds that Gorelik had reviewed the proposed findings and adjudication order and
the “supporting discovery,” i.e., the State’s exhibits.
¶ 18 Respondent notes that, in Gorelik’s response to her motion, he admitted that he had no
personal or direct knowledge. Although respondent cites cases where the stipulating respondent
had direct knowledge, she does not offer supporting authority for her contention that Gorelik was
required to have personal knowledge. We are unpersuaded that Gorelik’s personal knowledge,
direct or otherwise, affects the fact that his admission is effective as to him and he is bound by it.
¶ 19 Finally, respondent argues that the admission of Gorelik, a noncustodial parent, coupled
with exhibits that were accepted over her objection, was an insufficient basis for a finding of
-5-
2021 IL App (2d) 200691neglect. According to respondent, she was not afforded the rights to which she is entitled under
the Juvenile Court Act as a parent and a party respondent—“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” (705 ILCS 405/1-5(1) (West 2018). The State responds that the basis for
the court’s ruling was Gorelik’s admission “in conjunction” with the exhibits, which “provide the
required factual basis to support the adjudication of [T.C.] as neglected”; taken together, the
admission and the exhibits “properly supported the trial court’s determination” of neglect.
¶ 20 We note that the cases cited by the State stand for the proposition that a custodial parent’s
admission and stipulation may be sufficient to support a finding of abuse or neglect. See, e.g., In re
R.B., 336 Ill. App. 3d 606, 616 (2003) (“[a] custodial parent’s admission and stipulation, by itself,
may be sufficient to support a finding of abuse or neglect,” though the court must also consider
the factual basis therefor (emphasis in original)); In re April C., 326 Ill. App. 3d 225 (2001) (one
custodial parent’s stipulation held sufficient); see also In re A.L., 2012 IL App (2d) 110992, ¶ 32
(custodial parent’s “right to due process was not violated when at the adjudicatory stage the trial
court accepted her stipulation of neglect without inquiring as to the factual basis”). We decline to
extend the State’s authorities to the present circumstances, where a noncustodial parent’s
admission and stipulation purports to bind the custodial parent.
¶ 21 The question in this case is whether the trial court’s acceptance of Gorelik’s admission and
the State’s exhibits as the factual basis for its adjudication deprived respondent of a meaningful
opportunity to be heard. The order adjudicating T.C. a neglected and dependent minor recites that
the State’s allegations were proven “by a preponderance of the evidence.” However, since the only
evidence presented was the State’s exhibits and Gorelik’s admission and stipulation, and no
-6-
2021 IL App (2d) 200691additional incriminating evidence or stipulation was received from respondent, the custodial
parent, we are not persuaded that the allegations were, in fact, proven.
¶ 22 We hold that the trial court properly accepted Gorelik’s admission and stipulation; it was
admissible as against him, and although he admitted that he did not have personal knowledge of
the representations made in the admission, he could be bound by it. We further hold that Gorelik’s
admission was not admissible as against respondent; respondent could not be bound by someone
else’s admission. Accordingly, the trial court committed error when it considered the admission
for purposes of adjudicating the rights of respondent.
¶ 23 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 24 For the reasons stated, we vacate the judgment of neglect, affirm as to all other matters
including the dependency adjudication, and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 25 Affirmed in part and vacated in part.
¶ 26 Cause remanded.
-7-
2021 IL App (2d) 200691No. 2-20-0691
Cite as: In re T.C., 2021 IL App (2d) 200691Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County, No. 19-JA-200;
the Hon. Valerie Boettle Ceckowski, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys John E. Murphy, of Wilmette, for appellant.
for
Appellant:
Attorneys Eric F. Rinehart, State’s Attorney, of Waukegan (Patrick
for Delfino, Edward R. Psenicka, and Stephanie Hoit Lee, of State’s
Appellee: Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the
People.
Lindsay G. Johnson, of Meyers & Johnson, LLC, of Waukegan,
guardian ad litem.
-8-