In re H.T. , 2021 IL App (4th) 210297-U ( 2021 )

NOTICE 2021 IL App (4th) 210297-UThis Order was filed under
FILED
NO. 4-21-0297 October 8, 2021
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
Carla Bender
not precedent except in the
IN THE APPELLATE COURT 4th District Appellate
limited circumstances allowed
Court, IL
under Rule 23(e)(1).
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
In re H.T. and E.T., Minors ) Appeal from
) Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) McLean County
Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 19JA92
v. )
Robert T., ) Honorable
Respondent-Appellant). ) J. Brian Goldrick,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Knecht and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court’s best-interest finding
terminating respondent’s parental rights was not against the manifest weight of
the evidence.
¶2 On April 14, 2021, the trial court terminated the parental rights of respondent,
Robert T., as to his children, E.T. (born December 7, 2016) and H.T. (born December 5, 2018).
Respondent mother, Holly T., is not a party to this appeal. On appeal, respondent argues the trial
court’s best-interest finding terminating his parental rights was against the manifest weight of the
evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 A. Initial Proceedings
¶5 In October 2019, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging
the minors’ environment was injurious to their welfare (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2018))
where respondent and respondent mother (1) had unresolved issues of alcohol or substance
abuse, (2) failed to provide adequate shelter for the minors, and (3) left the minors without
reasonable supervision for an unreasonable amount of time. Subsequently, the trial court granted
the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) temporary custody and guardianship of
the minors.
¶6 In December 2019, the trial court entered an adjudicatory order finding the minors
neglected in that the minors’ environment was injurious to their welfare where respondent and
respondent mother admitted to having unresolved issues of substance abuse. In a February 2020
dispositional order, the court (1) found respondent unfit, (2) made the minors wards of the court,
and (3) granted DCFS guardianship and custody.
¶7 B. Termination Proceedings
¶8 In October 2020, the State filed a petition to terminate respondent’s parental
rights. The petition alleged respondent (1) was depraved (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i) (West 2018)),
(2) failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal
of the minors from him within nine months after adjudication, specifically December 19, 2019,
to September 19, 2020 (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2018)), and (3) failed to make reasonable
progress toward the return of the minors within nine months after adjudication, specifically
December 19, 2019, to September 19, 2020 (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2018)).
¶9 1. Fitness Hearing
¶ 10 In December 2020, the trial court held a hearing at which respondent admitted he
failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minors within nine months after
adjudication, specifically December 19, 2019, to September 19, 2020 (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii)
-2-
(West 2018)). Based on respondent’s admission and an extensive factual basis offered by the
State, the court found respondent unfit by clear and convincing evidence.
¶ 11 2. Best-Interest Hearing
¶ 12 In April 2021, the trial court held a best-interest hearing where the court heard
testimony and received best-interest reports from the court appointed special advocate (CASA)
and DCFS.
¶ 13 a. Nicole Edwards
¶ 14 Nicole Edwards, the minors’ foster mother, testified the children were initially
placed in her home but were placed with fictive kin after two weeks. The children were returned
to Nicole in October 2020. Nicole worked as a medical office assistant and her husband, Joshua,
worked for Home Sweet Home Ministries. According to Nicole, E.T. was a sweet child who was
“very anxious at certain times.” E.T. gained a lot of trust since being placed with Nicole, and he
loved school. As an example of E.T.’s growing trust, Nicole testified he was initially scared of
having a bath but now loved baths and would sleep through the night. Nicole testified
counseling helped E.T. and he had gotten better with listening.
¶ 15 Nicole testified H.T. was very loving and was developing more personality every
day. H.T. was a good eater and became more talkative after being placed with Nicole. The
children transitioned well to a daily schedule of having breakfast and going to daycare.
According to Nicole, the minors get picked up from daycare by 5:30 p.m. and come home, eat
supper, play, have baths, and go to bed. Nicole testified she loved the children and had a strong
bond with them. The children were also bonded with her husband, and they displayed signs of
affection. According to Nicole, she and her husband wanted to adopt the minors. Nicole opined
it was in the children’s best interest to stay in her home and a move would be “catastrophic for
-3-
their development.” If something were to happen to Nicole and her husband, the children had
established relationships with grandparents, aunts, and uncles who could care for them, although
there was no set plan. Nicole and her husband would be willing to adopt the children even if
there was no DCFS subsidy to assist financially.
¶ 16 b. Joshua Edwards
¶ 17 Joshua Edwards testified he and his wife, Nicole, were willing and had a desire to
adopt the children. According to Joshua, the children were loving and caring, and he enjoyed
reading to them every night before bed. Joshua opined it was in the children’s best interest to
remain in his home and removing them would be traumatizing. The children made positive
improvements since being in the foster placement, and H.T. was speaking in full sentences.
¶ 18 c. Respondent Mother
¶ 19 Respondent mother testified she had a video visit with the children the previous
day because the foster father had COVID-19. Respondent mother had in-person visits at DCFS,
and the children would run to her for the snacks and toys she brought. According to respondent
mother, the children were very affectionate and happy to see her at visits. Respondent mother
testified there would be no drugs in her system if she completed a screen and she stopped using
illicit substances because her children needed her. Although it would be a change if the children
were removed from their foster placement, respondent mother did not think it would traumatize
them.
¶ 20 Respondent mother testified E.T. was a very hyperactive, bouncy, energetic boy.
According to respondent mother, this was not a negative trait but was something that needed to
be worked on. Before the children were removed from her care, respondent mother was working
on getting E.T. into treatment because a friend who worked at Easter Seals thought he had “slight
-4-
autism.” Respondent mother testified she was currently living with her friend, Chastity, and
Chastity’s three children. Chastity was willing to allow the minors to live in her home.
Respondent mother testified she had been living with Chastity for approximately two weeks and
had stayed there sporadically in the past. Respondent mother acknowledged she moved several
times during the case.
¶ 21 Respondent mother testified the children got emotional and cried at the end of
visits, but she comforted them and gave them a sense of security. According to respondent
mother, the children wanted to be with her. Respondent mother testified it would hurt the
children if she were not allowed to have contact with them. According to respondent mother, the
children were bonded with her and not having contact would particularly devastate H.T.
Respondent mother testified she could provide a safe, stable, happy home for the children at
Chastity’s house. Respondent mother testified she was sober and her children were her top
priority.
¶ 22 Respondent mother testified she had trouble securing stable employment due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. According to respondent mother, she had two potential job
opportunities but she was rejected because she refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
Respondent mother acknowledged she had a history of substance abuse and was recommended
for residential treatment. However, respondent mother never engaged in residential treatment,
and she failed to complete individual counseling.
¶ 23 d. Respondent Father
¶ 24 Respondent testified he was arrested in November 2019 and was taken into
custody a second time in March 2020. Prior to his incarceration in March 2020, respondent had
weekly visits with the children. Respondent testified visits went well and the children were
-5-
excited to see him. According to respondent, he had an upcoming court date in his criminal case
that he expected to result in “charges amended and then allowed to bond out.”
¶ 25 Respondent testified he chose to be imprisoned at a prison that offered substance
abuse treatment. According to respondent, he wanted to change his life for the better and be a
father to his children. Respondent completed the Aim Higher Program, a 12-week program
designed to change the way a person thinks. Respondent was also participating in a program
addressing his criminal conduct and substance abuse issues. If respondent were released from
prison and told to complete inpatient services, he would do so immediately.
¶ 26 Respondent testified his relationship with the children was “[i]ntertwined and
tight.” Respondent described doing laundry with E.T., going to the store with the children, and
playing with the children. According to respondent, it would not be traumatic for the children to
be moved from their foster placement. Respondent opined it would not be in the minors’ best
interest to terminate his parental rights because of his bond with them. Respondent said he
would complete all services when he was released from prison and asked for a few more months
to complete services. Respondent’s projected parole date was November 2023.
¶ 27 e. Trial Court’s Findings
¶ 28 After hearing the evidence, the trial court found it was in the minors’ best interest
to terminate respondent’s parental rights. The court made a lengthy oral pronouncement where it
weighed the statutory best-interest factors. Initially, the court noted the children had been in
foster care for 18 months, which was approximately two-thirds of H.T.’s life and one-third of
E.T.’s life. The court discussed the history of the case and respondent’s struggles with substance
abuse. The court pointed out that respondent had positive drug screens until he was incarcerated.
The court noted respondent had time to reflect and recognized his substance abuse issues. The
-6-
court also recognized there was no way to know whether respondent was going to be released
from prison in June 2021 and he agreed the children should not wait for permanency until his
projected parole date of November 2023. Even if respondent was released sooner than
November 2023, the court noted that the case could continue on for many months while
respondent engaged in services.
¶ 29 The trial court determined the age and needs of the minors, including their
physical safety and welfare, food, shelter, health, and clothing, clearly favored termination of
parental rights. The foster placement met the children’s needs on a daily basis for the previous
six months. The court discussed the children’s sense of attachment and acknowledged the
children recognized respondent and had a connection with him. However, on a daily basis, the
foster family provided the children with love, attachment, and a sense of being valued. The court
noted the children were thriving in their foster placement and were settling in to being children.
¶ 30 The trial court discussed the children’s community ties, including church and
school. The court noted the children had consistency in the daycare they attended. The court
noted the foster placement and respondent both preferred to provide long-term care but
determined the foster placement was able to provide that care and respondent was not. The court
expressed its concern regarding the uncertainty of the situation in the event the children remained
in substitute care. The court found the need for permanence weighed in favor of termination
because the children were in a stable placement and reunification with respondent was not
probable or practical. Ultimately, the court concluded the factors weighed in favor of
termination and that termination was in the minors’ best interest.
¶ 31 This appeal followed.
¶ 32 II. ANALYSIS
-7-
¶ 33 On appeal, respondent argues the trial court’s best-interest finding terminating his
parental rights was against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
¶ 34 A. Standard of Review
¶ 35 “At the best-interest stage of termination proceedings, 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 Jay H., 395 Ill. App. 3d 1063, 1071, 918 N.E.2d 284, 290-91 (2009).
The reviewing court will not reverse the trial court’s best-interest determination unless it was
against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. A best-interest determination is against the
manifest weight of the evidence only if the facts clearly demonstrate the court should have
reached the opposite result. Id. Ultimately, the trial court is in the best position to determine the
credibility of the witnesses. In re K.B., 314 Ill. App. 3d 739, 748, 732 N.E.2d 1198, 1206
(2000).
¶ 36 At the best-interest stage of termination proceedings, “ ‘the parent’s interest in
maintaining the parent-child relationship must yield to the child’s interest in a stable, loving
home life.’ ” In re T.A., 359 Ill. App. 3d 953, 959, 835 N.E.2d 908, 912 (2005) (quoting In re
D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 364, 818 N.E.2d 1214, 1227 (2004)). The trial court takes into
consideration the best-interest factors in section 1-3(4.05) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705
ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2018)).
¶ 37 B. Best-Interest Finding
¶ 38 Respondent argues the trial court placed too much emphasis on the children’s
need for permanence. Respondent further argues the court placed too little weight on the
children’s relationship with respondent. We disagree with respondent. As evidenced by the trial
-8-
court’s lengthy ruling, it adequately weighed all the relevant statutory best-interest factors and
properly determined the factors weighed in favor of terminating respondent’s parental rights.
¶ 39 The trial court determined the age and needs of the minors, including their
physical safety and welfare, food, shelter, health, and clothing, clearly favored termination of
parental rights where the foster placement met the children’s needs on a daily basis for the
previous six months. The court discussed the children’s sense of attachment and acknowledged
the children recognized respondent and had a connection with respondent. However, on a daily
basis, the foster family provided the children with love, attachment, and a sense of being valued.
The children were thriving in their foster placement and had consistency in the daycare they
attended, which the foster mother testified E.T. loved.
¶ 40 Both the foster placement and respondent wished to provide long-term care, but
respondent was not in a position to provide permanency for the children. Respondent was
incarcerated during much of the case. Respondent points to his ongoing progress with services
in prison and his pending, although speculative, possible release from prison as evidence the
children were not in need of an immediate permanent parental solution such as adoption.
However, respondent’s speculative release from prison does not change the fact that respondent
would still require services upon his release, and the children had already been in foster care for
18 months. In contrast, the children had been in a stable placement for six months, the foster
family met the children’s daily needs, and the foster family was willing to provide permanence
for the children through adoption. The court’s finding that the children’s need for permanence
weighed in favor of termination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 41 Our review of the trial court’s best-interest finding indicates the court carefully
considered each factor and did not give any one factor undue weight. Although the court
-9-
emphasized the children’s need for permanence and stability, it did not give this factor excessive
weight. Accordingly, we find the trial court’s termination of respondent’s parental rights was not
against the manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, we affirm the court’s judgment.
¶ 42 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 43 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 44 Affirmed.
- 10 -