In re S.R. , 2024 IL App (4th) 231237-U ( 2024 )

NOTICE 2024 IL App (4th) 231237-UThis Order was filed under
FILED
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is February 21, 2024
NO. 4-23-1237
not precedent except in the Carla Bender
limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate
under Rule 23(e)(1).
IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
In re S.R., a Minor ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) Peoria County
Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 21JA26
v. )
Champaine W., ) Honorable
Respondent-Appellant). ) Derek G. Asbury,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE DOHERTY delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Cavanagh and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed
the trial court’s judgment where no meritorious issues could be raised on appeal
that the court’s fitness and best interest findings were against the manifest weight
of the evidence.
¶2 In April 2022, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of respondent
Champaine W. to her minor child, S.R. (born in 2021). In September 2023, the trial court found
respondent was an unfit parent under the Adoption Act (see 750 ILCS 50/1 (West 2022)) and that
termination of respondent’s parental rights was in S.R.’s best interest.
¶3 Respondent appealed. Thereafter, respondent’s appointed counsel moved to
withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing respondent’s appeal
presents no potentially meritorious issues for review. We grant the motion and affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
¶4 I. BACKGROUND
¶5 Respondent and Albert R. are the biological parents of S.R. Both parents were
parties to the proceedings below. Albert R. has separately appealed the termination of his parental
rights in appellate court case No. 4-23-1238. Accordingly, this disposition is limited to addressing
respondent’s potential claims on appeal.
¶6 A. The State’s Petition for Adjudication of Wardship
¶7 In January 2021, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship. The State
alleged S.R. was neglected because she lived in an environment injurious to her welfare (705 ILCS
405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)). Specifically, the State alleged (1) respondent consumed alcohol
throughout her pregnancy and stopped just two weeks before giving birth to S.R., resulting in S.R.
suffering from microcephaly, (2) respondent had not properly addressed her substance abuse
issues, (3) respondent repeatedly contacted the police regarding her other children, including at
least four times in October 2020, (4) respondent was involved in numerous incidents of domestic
violence involving Albert R. and her other children, (5) respondent was twice involved with the
Intact Family Services Program of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS), (6) respondent was indicated by DCFS four times prior to the initiation of the instant case,
and (7) Albert R. was indicated by DCFS prior to the initiation of the instant case.
¶8 In April 2021, the trial court adjudicated S.R. neglected (id.). At the dispositional
hearing held the same day, the court found respondent unfit for reasons other than financial
circumstances alone to care for S.R., made her a ward of the court, and placed her guardianship
and custody with DCFS. The court found respondent’s “substance abuse issues, domestic violence,
prior indicated findings of risk of physical injury, and possible mental health issues” formed the
basis for her unfitness.
-2-
¶9 B. The State’s Termination Petition
¶ 10 In April 2022, the State filed a petition to terminate respondent’s parental rights.
The State alleged respondent was an unfit person within the meaning of the Adoption Act for
failing to make reasonable progress toward S.R.’s return during the nine-month period following
the adjudication of neglect (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022)). The State alleged a nine-month
period of June 22, 2021, to March 22, 2022 (the relevant time period).
¶ 11 C. The Fitness Portion of the Termination Proceedings
¶ 12 1. The State’s Evidence
¶ 13 In June 2023, after numerous continuances, the trial court held the hearing on the
fitness portion of the termination proceedings.
¶ 14 a. The Testimony of Maria Peters
¶ 15 Lutheran Social Services of Illinois (LSSI) child welfare specialist Maria Peters
was the assigned caseworker from June 22, 2021, until mid-December 2021. Respondent reported
completing a parenting class but did not provide Peters a copy of the completion certificate.
Respondent was discharged from domestic violence classes in November 2021 and was referred
again in December 2021. Respondent was referred to individual counseling prior to the relevant
time period but was unsuccessfully discharged during the relevant time period (on June 29, 2021).
Peters referred respondent to individual counseling again in December 2021, but respondent did
not complete it while Peters was the caseworker. Respondent was required to do drug tests twice
per month but only completed one, on September 9, 2021, which tested positive for
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
¶ 16 Peters attempted an unannounced visit at the foster home on July 27, 2021, but
learned S.R. was at respondent’s home at the time, even though she was unfit and not permitted to
-3-
have unsupervised visits. When Peters attempted to take S.R. from respondent’s home, respondent
took S.R. away from Peters, ran inside, locked the doors, and began screaming. After police
officers arrived, respondent placed S.R. in her car seat outside the door of the apartment for Peters
to take her.
¶ 17 Peters observed a visit on August 2, 2021, during which respondent became
agitated while hearing another of her children talking about the foster home. Respondent tried to
feed S.R., but S.R. would push the bottle away. Respondent then stopped trying to feed S.R., who
began crying. Respondent put S.R. in the car seat and told her to go to sleep if she was going to
cry. S.R. remained in the car seat for about half of the visit. At one point, respondent picked S.R.
up by her arm, which alarmed Peters given S.R.’s small size. Respondent spent most of that visit
on the phone. When Albert R. arrived, respondent left the visiting area and began arguing with
him.
¶ 18 Peters described respondent’s and Albert R.’s cooperation with the agency as “not
very good.” According to Peters, respondent explained her difficulty completing services was due
to transportation and mental health issues, specifically, anxiety with leaving her home. During her
time as the caseworker on this matter, Peters never felt it was safe to return S.R. to her parents.
This was because “[n]either were complying with services to correct any of the conditions that
brought [S.R.] into foster care in the first place.”
¶ 19 b. The Testimony of Gerald Suelter
¶ 20 Peoria police officer Gerald Suelter responded to a violent incident involving
respondent at her apartment building on October 20, 2021. A woman reported being battered by a
tenant of the building. Suelter noticed a chunk of the woman’s hair had been pulled out. Suelter
identified respondent as the other individual involved in the incident. Respondent “appeared to be
-4-
extremely intoxicated, and she was hard to talk to.” Respondent was slurring her words and had
an empty alcohol bottle next to her.
¶ 21 c. The Testimony of Ma’Lachi Jimoh
¶ 22 LSSI permanency achievement specialist Ma’Lachi Jimoh was the assigned
caseworker from February 14, 2022, to April 7, 2022. On March 7, 2022, Jimoh referred
respondent to domestic violence classes. Respondent was previously unsuccessfully discharged
from this service and failed to complete this service by the end of the relevant time period.
Respondent had stable housing during Jimoh’s time as the caseworker and completed parenting
classes. Respondent did not complete any drug testing during Jimoh’s time as the caseworker.
Respondent completed a mental health assessment in January 2022 and only “sporadically”
participated in individual counseling thereafter.
¶ 23 2. Respondent’s Evidence
¶ 24 Respondent testified she had not completed individual counseling by the end of the
relevant time period but maintained she was regularly attending counseling. Respondent stated she
attended all her visits with S.R. and described them as “amazing.”
¶ 25 The trial court then took the matter under advisement.
¶ 26 3. The Trial Court’s Fitness Determination
¶ 27 In September 2023, the trial court found respondent unfit as alleged in the State’s
termination petition. The court noted respondent missed 13 consecutive drug tests between
September 2021 and March 2022, despite being required to complete 2 per month. The court also
noted respondent was unsuccessfully discharged from domestic violence classes and individual
counseling and failed to complete either despite being referred again to both.
¶ 28 The trial court also found the following:
-5-
“So when I look at it objectively during these nine months and I look
at the services—I’m trying to do *** this as fair as I can. When I look at
what they order and what was done, almost the majority if not all of the
things that were ordered to do were not completed during this nine-month
period. I can’t find that under the rules applied by the Supreme Court and
under the statute that that is reasonable progress. The caseworker testified
directly that during this nine-month period the child was not going to be
returned home or close to being returned home because the services weren’t
done.
*** [W]ith all these things asked to do if you maybe do one or two
of ten that is not reasonable progress.”
¶ 29 The trial court then proceeded to the best interest hearing.
¶ 30 D. The Best Interest Portion of the Termination Proceedings
¶ 31 1. The State’s Evidence
¶ 32 As reflected in the best interest report and testimony of LSSI child welfare specialist
Kayla Hanten, S.R.’s foster mother, Marisa W., was able, willing, and committed to provide
permanency to S.R. through adoption. S.R. had been with Marisa since August 2022. Marisa met
S.R.’s food, shelter, health, and clothing needs. Hanten observed the home to be safe and to have
adequate space. S.R. had an appropriate sleeping space within the home. S.R. was continuing to
attend Eastside Educational Center. Respondent was not always attending her scheduled visits,
and S.R. did not have a visible bond with respondent when she did visit. By contrast, S.R. and
Marisa had developed a significant parent/child bond. In addition to respondent not completing
her drug tests, Hanten noted in her report:
-6-
“[T]here have been concerns reported by [respondent’s] counselor
regarding her behavior and attitude that have ‘seriously declined’. The
agency has concerns regarding [respondent’s] reported anxiety and her
ability to manage her emotional health in order to care for [S.R.]
[Respondent] has reported that her anxiety is debilitating and that it hinders
her from leaving her home, bringing up concerns of [her] ability to
effectively meet [S.R.’s] needs.”
¶ 33 Hanten believed it was in S.R.’s best interest that respondent’s parental rights be
terminated and the permanency goal changed to adoption.
¶ 34 2. Respondent’s Evidence
¶ 35 Respondent testified that S.R. smiles, runs to her, and hugs and kisses her when
they first see each other at visits. S.R. and respondent both cry at the end of visits, which
“[e]verybody at the agency” has seen. S.R. tells respondent not to leave when the visits end.
Respondent described her bond with S.R. as “loving, caring, [and] nurturing.” Having participated
in counseling, respondent felt she was “totally different from two years ago” and “[t]his experience
has humbled [her] wholeheartedly.” Respondent took “full accountability” for drinking while
pregnant and acknowledged she was not a victim of her choices. Respondent felt it was not in
S.R.’s best interest “for her to go anywhere but with her mommy and her father and all of our
family.”
¶ 36 3. Additional Testimony of Kayla Hanten
¶ 37 Hanten was recalled to the stand and testified she never witnessed S.R. cry at the
end of a visit and was not aware if S.R. had ever done so. Moreover, respondent only participated
in 12 out of 30 visits since February 2023. Hanten acknowledged respondent had shown “growth”
-7-
with counseling but still needed to continue to address her anger management issues. Respondent
reported not completing drug tests because she thought they were no longer court-ordered (despite
Hanten admonishing her in a family team meeting as recently as April or May that it was important
for her to complete them to have visits in her home) and not attending visits due to her anxiety
issues.
¶ 38 4. The Trial Court’s Best Interest Determination
¶ 39 The trial court acknowledged respondent’s anxiety-related difficulties with
maintaining visitation but emphasized it “can’t change” the fact that the visits “were sporadic.”
The court noted S.R. had spent approximately half her life in foster care and that “the heavy lifting”
of providing shelter, food, medical care, and education had been done by her foster parent. The
court found the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence it was in S.R.’s best interest to
terminate respondent’s parental rights and changed the goal to adoption.
¶ 40 This appeal followed.
¶ 41 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 42 Appellate counsel has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders, arguing that the
appeal of this case presents no potentially meritorious issues for review. See In re S.M., 314 Ill.
App. 3d 682, 685-86 (2000) (holding Anders applies to termination of parental rights cases and
providing the proper procedure to be followed by appellate counsel). Counsel identifies two
potential issues for review: (1) whether the trial court’s determination that respondent was unfit
was against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) whether the court’s determination that
termination of respondent’s parental rights was in S.R.’s best interest was against the manifest
weight of the evidence. As to the unfitness finding, counsel contends there is no meritorious
argument respondent made reasonable progress during the relevant time period given her
-8-
(1) completion of only parenting classes, (2) failure to complete drug tests or domestic violence
classes, and (3) new domestic violence incident, unauthorized unsupervised contact with S.R., and
missed visits. As to the best interest finding, counsel contends all the best interest factors favored
termination of respondent’s parental rights. Counsel provided respondent notice of the motion to
withdraw. Respondent has not filed a response.
¶ 43 Because we agree this appeal presents no potentially meritorious issues for review,
we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 44 A. The Trial Court’s Unfitness Finding
¶ 45 Section 2-29(2) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West
2022)) provides a two-step process to involuntarily terminate parental rights. The State must first
prove by clear and convincing evidence the respondent is “unfit” as contemplated in section 1(D)
of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2022)). In re N.G., 2018 IL 121939, ¶ 28.
¶ 46 The trial court found respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward the
return of the minors during the relevant time period pursuant to section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption
Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022)).
“Reasonable progress is examined under an objective standard based upon
the amount of progress measured from the conditions existing at the time
custody was taken from the parent. [Citation.] The benchmark for
measuring a parent’s reasonable progress under section 1(D)(m) of the
Adoption Act encompasses the parent’s compliance with the service plans
and court’s directives in light of the condition that gave rise to the removal
of the child and other conditions which later become known that would
prevent the court from returning custody of the child to the parent.
-9-
[Citation.] Reasonable progress exists when the trial court can conclude that
progress being made by a parent to comply with directives given for the
return of the minor is sufficiently demonstrable and of such a quality that
the trial court will be able to order the minor returned to parental custody in
the near future. [Citations.]” In re D.T., 2017 IL App (3d) 170120, ¶ 17.
¶ 47 The trial court is in a superior position to observe witnesses and evaluate their
credibility. In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d 476, 498-99 (2002). Accordingly, the court’s findings regarding
parental unfitness are afforded great deference and will not be reversed unless they are against the
manifest weight of the evidence. Id. “A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence
where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 208 (2001).
¶ 48 The evidence presented in this case demonstrates the trial court’s unfitness
determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Respondent was unsuccessfully
discharged from individual counseling and did not complete it during the relevant time period after
being referred again. Respondent was also unsuccessfully discharged from domestic violence
classes and did not complete them following another referral. Despite being required to complete
2 drug tests per month, respondent only did 1 during the relevant time period, testing positive for
THC and missing 13 consecutive subsequent tests. Respondent’s substance abuse, while pregnant
with S.R., was a significant reason for S.R. coming into foster care. Additionally, respondent was
involved in a violent incident, in which she was reportedly extremely intoxicated, with another
tenant of her apartment building during the relevant time period. Moreover, respondent also had
unauthorized unsupervised contact with S.R., which required police intervention. Respondent’s
inability to apply whatever skills she learned through her limited participation in services
- 10 -
undermines the notion of having made reasonable progress. See In re R.L., 352 Ill. App. 3d 985,
999 (2004).
¶ 49 In sum, the record adequately supports the testimony from Peters that respondent
did not comply with services or correct any of the conditions that brought S.R. into foster care in
the first place. Accordingly, we agree with counsel that there are no potentially meritorious
arguments that could be advanced on appeal that the trial court’s unfitness determination was
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 50 B. The Trial Court’s Best Interest Finding
¶ 51 “If the trial court finds the parent to be unfit, the court then determines whether it
is in the best interests of the minor that parental rights be terminated.” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347,
352 (2004). The State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest. In re C.P., 2019 IL App (4th)
190420, ¶ 71. The preponderance of the evidence standard is a less stringent standard than proof
beyond a reasonable doubt; it is less stringent than even the intermediate standard of clear and
convincing evidence. In re K.P., 2020 IL App (3d) 190709, ¶ 41 (citing People v. Peterson, 2017
IL 120331, ¶ 37).
¶ 52 In evaluating a child’s best interest, the trial court must consider the following
statutory factors:
“(1) the child’s physical safety and welfare; (2) the development of the
child’s identity; (3) the child’s familial, cultural and religious background
and ties; (4) the child’s sense of attachments, including love, security,
familiarity, continuity of affection, and the least disruptive placement
alternative; (5) the child’s wishes and long-term goals; (6) the child’s
- 11 -
community ties; (7) the child’s need for permanence, including the need for
stability and continuity of relationships with parent figures and siblings;
(8) the uniqueness of every family and child; (9) the risks related to
substitute care; and (10) the preferences of the person available to care for
the child.” In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1052, 1072 (2006); 705 ILCS
405/1-3(4.05) (West 2022).
“The court’s best interest determination [need not] contain an explicit reference to each of these
factors, and a reviewing court need not rely on any basis used by the trial court below in affirming
its decision.” In re Tajannah O., 2014 IL App (1st) 133119, ¶ 19. On review, “[w]e will not disturb
a court’s finding that termination is in the child[ ]’s best interest unless it was against the manifest
weight of the evidence.” In re T.A., 359 Ill. App. 3d 953, 961 (2005).
¶ 53 The evidence presented in this case demonstrates the trial court’s best interest
determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. “[A]t a best-interests hearing,
the parent’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship must yield to the child’s interest
in a stable, loving home life.” D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 364. Other factors, such as “the child’s need for
permanence which includes the child’s need for stability and continuity of relationships with parent
figures” (705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05)(g) (West 2022)), may properly be considered.
¶ 54 Here, S.R. had spent approximately half of her life in her current placement. The
evidence showed Marisa, who was S.R.’s foster mother since August 2022, was willing, able, and
committed to providing permanency to S.R. through adoption. The evidence also showed
respondent continued to experience anxiety issues, which inhibited her from meeting S.R.’s needs.
Marisa, on the other hand, was meeting S.R.’s food, shelter, health, clothing, medical, and
educational needs. Hanten testified the foster home was safe with adequate space and an
- 12 -
appropriate sleeping area for S.R. Hanten also testified that respondent was not attending her
scheduled visits and S.R. did not have a visible bond with her when she did attend. By contrast,
the evidence demonstrated that S.R. and Marisa had developed a significant parent/child bond.
¶ 55 We agree with appellate counsel that no potentially meritorious arguments can be
raised on appeal that the trial court’s best interest determination was against the manifest weight
of the evidence.
¶ 56 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 57 For the reasons stated, we agree with appellate counsel that no meritorious issues
can be raised on appeal. We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
¶ 58 Affirmed.
- 13 -