In re A.D. , 2024 IL App (2d) 240108-U ( 2024 )

2024 IL App (2d) 240108-UNos. 2-24-0108, 2-24-0109, 2-24-110, 2-24-0111, & 2-24-0112 cons.
Order filed July 8, 2024
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent
except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
In re A.D., T.D., M.D., C.D., and I.D., Minors ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of Kane County.
)
) Nos. 21-JA-098
) 21-JA-099
) 21-JA-100
) 21-JA-101
) 22-JA-089
)
(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner- ) Honorable
Appellee, v. Christopher D., Respondent- ) Kathryn D. Karayannis,
Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Hutchinson and Jorgensen concurred in the judgment
ORDER
¶1 Held: Respondent’s attorney is granted leave to withdraw where counsel demonstrated
that there was no nonfrivolous issue to raise on appeal. Affirmed.
¶2 On January 11, 2024, the circuit court of Kane County entered an order terminating the
parental rights of respondent, Christopher D., with respect to his children, A.D., T.D., M.D., C.D.,
and I.D. Respondent timely appealed. His appointed appellate counsel has moved to withdraw
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1968). See In re Alexa J., 345 Ill. App. 3d 985(2003) (holding that Anders applies in termination of parental rights cases and outlining the
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
procedure to be followed when appellate counsel seeks to withdraw). According to appellate
counsel, this appeal presents no potentially meritorious issues for review. Counsel served
respondent with a copy of the motion and its accompanying memorandum; respondent filed a
response, however, the response requested only that another attorney be appointed on his behalf.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s motion, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 Christopher D. (Chris) and Crissy had five children together: A.D., born March 16, 2012;
T.D., born October 21, 2015; M.D., October 2, 2016; C.D., born June 3, 2019; and I.D., who was
born on June 21, 2022, during the pendency of her siblings’ cases.
¶5 On June 30, 2021, following a domestic disturbance which occurred on June 11, 2021, the
State filed neglect petitions on behalf of A.D., T.D., M.D., and C.D. The petitions alleged that the
children were neglected in that the parents did not provide the proper or necessary support,
education, medical care, or other care necessary for their wellbeing and that their environment was
injurious to their welfare, pursuant to sections 2-3(1)(a) and (b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987
(705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a), (b) (West 2020)). Specifically, the petitions alleged that the condition of
the family’s home was unsanitary and that there were drugs and weapons in the home accessible
to the children. Further, the petitions alleged that Chris’s mental health issues and history of
domestic violence placed the children at risk and that Crissy failed to protect the children from the
risk he posed.
¶6 A shelter care hearing was held on July 1, 2021. At that time Chris’s criminal defense
attorney, Francis Baumgart, asked to represent both Chris and Crissy. Concerned that there may
be a conflict, the trial court stated that it would not allow Baumgart to represent them both.
-2-
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
Baumgart then requested to represent Crissy, but the trial court, still concerned about conflicts,
stated that it would allow Baumgart to represent Chris, but not Crissy. The public defender’s office
was appointed to represent Crissy until she could retain private counsel.
¶7 At the shelter care hearing, a sworn police synopsis regarding the June 11, 2021, incident
was admitted into evidence. According to the synopsis, police responded to a domestic disturbance
at the family’s home in Elgin. A witness reported that Chris and Crissy were having an argument,
and that Chris then poured gasoline onto Crissy’s SUV, which was parked in the driveway near
the front of the house. Chris then entered the home and returned with a burning piece of paper he
used to try and ignite the gasoline. He was thwarted when Crissy began hosing down the area and
paper with a garden hose. When the police arrived, Crissy was outside and reported that Chris was
inside with two of the children. A live .40-millimeter bullet was found on the front porch. Chris
was then apprehended alone several blocks away, and police entered the home to locate the other
two children. Police also located a 40-millimeter Smith and Wesson handgun approximately 75
feet behind the residence in a wooded area. A search warrant was obtained for the home, and police
located ammunition and magazines for a Smith and Wesson .40-millimeter handgun, two different
caliber bullets, nine kilograms of cannabis plants, and drug manufacturing equipment. Based on
the unsanitary condition of the home, the City of Elgin condemned the residence.
¶8 As a result of the June 11, 2021, incident, he was charged with armed violence,
manufacture or delivery of cannabis more than 5000 grams, possession of cannabis more than
5000 grams, unlawful use of possession of weapons or ammunition by a convicted felon, and
attempt arson. At the time of the domestic disturbance, Chris was on probation for a prior incident
that occurred on February 4, 2020, in which Chris was charged with domestic battery against
Crissy, her mother, Madge F., and Crissy’s adult son from a prior relationship. Chris pled guilty
-3-
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
to the charges against Crissy’s mother. Chris ultimately served time in the Illinois Department of
Corrections for violating the terms of his probation. He completed his sentence prior to the
conclusion of the instant case.
¶9 An adjudicatory hearing was held on September 28, 2021. At that hearing Chris and Crissy
agreed to stipulate to the allegations contained in count 3.5 of the State’s petition, which alleged
that the children were neglected in that their environment was injurious to their welfare because
Chris’s mental health placed the children at risk and Crissy failed to protect them from him. In
exchange, the State agreed to withdraw the other counts with the understanding that the integrated
assessment may still require participation in services related to the withdrawn counts. The factual
basis presented was that Chris was treated inpatient at Amita Health in June 2021 and was
diagnosed with major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder with a self-reported history of post
traumatic stress disorder.
¶ 10 Following the integrated assessment, a service plan was created in October 2021. The plan
required Chris to participate in the following services: (1) cooperate with DCFS; (2) maintain safe,
adequate, and clean housing; (3) participate in a mental health evaluation and psychiatric
evaluation and to comply with recommended treatment through individual therapy; (4) refrain
from criminal conduct; (5) refrain from using drugs and alcohol and undergo a substance abuse
assessment; (6) participate in a domestic violence consultation and comply with recommendations;
(7) participate in family therapy when therapeutically appropriate; and (8) attend parenting
education and coaching.
¶ 11 A dispositional hearing was held on November 30, 2021. The following were submitted as
evidence: the guardian ad litem’s report, the DCFS report, the therapy assessment and treatment
plans for three of the children, the integrated assessment, photographs of the condition of the home
-4-
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
when the police entered on June 11, 2021, Chris’s health records, police body camera videos, the
police sworn synopsis, statement’s showing Chris’s non-compliance with his bond conditions, and
the transcript of the suppression motion in Chris’s criminal case.
¶ 12 One of the body camera videos showed a member of the SWAT team entering the home.
The front door was locked on the inside with a chain bolt such that the officers had to use a
battering ram to break the lock. As the officers entered, one slipped on the entryway floor. The
officer remarked that he was not sure if the floor was slick with water or gasoline. The home was
in complete disarray, with food, garbage, clothing, and toys strewn about the floor. Most of the
furniture was overturned or broken. Officers located a gas can sitting on the kitchen table. The
officers also located A.D. trapped in a bathroom on the first floor with the doorknob broken off.
The officers were forced to batter the door open to free him. There was a room on the first floor
filled with items such that there was no space on the floor to walk. The laundry room was similarly
filled with clothes. The garage was filled with old garbage, and flies are visible in the footage.
Upstairs was a Peloton stationary bike with a smashed screen. There were holes punched in the
double doors leading to the master bedroom. Inside the bedroom were two boxsprings and three
mattresses stacked in a haphazard pile with no sheets. The double doors to the master bathroom
were torn down and lying in the bathroom. It also appeared the windows had previously been
covered by some kind of sheet or curtain that was torn down, as the ripped remnants remained
above the window frames. The door to the basement was locked with a padlock. In the basement
was a pile of children’s toys and other items. Further back the officers discovered what they
described as a marijuana grow operation.
¶ 13 The trial court determined that Chris and Crissy were both unfit and unable to care for,
protect, train, educate, supervise, or discipline the children; that reasonable efforts and appropriate
-5-
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
services could not prevent or eliminate the necessity for removal of the children from the home;
and that leaving the children in the home was contrary to the health, welfare, and safety of the
children. The trial court made the children wards of the court and set a permanency goal of return
home in 12 months. The court also admonished both Chris and Crissy that should they choose to
remain together, they would “rise and fall together” meaning that the court would not return the
children to a home where one parent had made progress but the other had not.
¶ 14 A guardian ad litem report dated June 12, 2022, indicated that Chris and Crissy were living
together in Elgin. It also indicated that, following a visit on May 21, 2022, A.D. told M.D. that he
had a “family secret” that Crissy would be having a baby in two weeks.
¶ 15 On June 24, 2022, the State filed a neglect petition on behalf of the newborn I.D. The
petition alleged the minor was neglected in that the parents did not provide the proper or necessary
support, education, medical care, or other care for her well-being and that her environment was
injurious to her welfare. Specifically, the petition alleged the environment was injurious in that
drugs and weapons were present in the home and accessible to the minor, that Chris’s mental health
and domestic violence issues placed the minor at risk, and that Crissy failed to protect I.D. from
Chris.
¶ 16 A shelter care hearing was held that same day. DCFS Investigator Christina Reese and
DCFS caseworker Tina Varney testified at the shelter care hearing that the parents had not told
DCFS that Crissy was pregnant. When the parents were asked, they confirmed that Crissy was
pregnant but would not give any details regarding her expected due date or which hospital Crissy
intended to have the baby at. When Reese later learned that the child may have been born, she
attempted to reach out to Chris and Crissy, Crissy’s mother, and the parties’ attorneys, but received
no information. Reese eventually learned from calling local hospitals that Crissy had been released
-6-
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
from Lutheran General Hospital on June 22, 2022. Chris and Crissy had informed the other
children about the pregnancy saying it was a “family secret” and that they did not want the baby
taken by DCFS from the hospital. One of the children told their foster parents, who then told
Varney. Neither Reese nor Varney knew where the newborn child currently was. Varney expressed
concern about I.D. remaining in the parent’s care, as she felt that neither of them had made much
progress in their respective therapies. The trial court ordered that I.D. be placed in shelter care and
granted temporary custody to DCFS.
¶ 17 June 24, 2022, was also to be the day of the first permanency review for the other four
children, however, when the court asked the attorneys if they were ready to proceed, Chris’s
counsel, Baumgart, answered that he was not prepared to proceed stating, “I know nothing or next
to nothing about the negligence [sic] court. I am a criminal attorney. And we were going to allow
Crissy’s attorney to take the lead, and they have not been able to retain one.” The trial court then
appointed conflict counsel for Chris who represented him at the shelter care hearing for I.D. and
throughout the rest of the case before the trial court.
¶ 18 The permanency hearing was postponed until June 30, 2022. At that time the State asked
the court to find that neither Chris nor Crissy had made reasonable efforts or progress but that the
goal should remain to return home. The State expressed concern that both parents had reported
that they had not participated in certain services, allegedly based on representations by Baumgart
that they did not need to do so. However, the State was confident that both parents now had able
counsel who were familiar with child protection cases. The guardian ad litem concurred with the
State’s recommendation, stating that they were originally going to recommend a change in
permanency goals but were concerned with how Baumgart’s representation might lead to a reversal
on appeal should the case proceed to termination.
-7-
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
¶ 19 Crissy’s counsel advised the court that Baumgart had advised the parents not to cooperate
with some of the services because of the pending criminal charges against Chris. She now believed
that Crissy understood that cooperation with DCFS was necessary to achieve the ultimate goal of
returning the children to her care, and that she was now on the right track.
¶ 20 The trial court agreed with the State’s and guardian ad litem’s recommendations and set
the goal of return home in twelve months, finding that although the parents had made some efforts,
there had not been reasonable or substantial progress. The trial court expressed that it had the same
concerns regarding the advice the parents had received from Baumgart but had no quarrel with
current counsel’s ability to represent the parents, stating, “[s]o it is for that reason and that reason
alone, essentially, right now, that I am going to leave the goal at return home 12 [months].”
¶ 21 An adjudicatory hearing for I.D. was held on September 15, 2022. At the hearing, Chris
and Crissy stipulated that the State’s evidence would show that I.D. was neglected in that her
environment was injurious to her welfare based on Chris’s mental health and the parents’ failure
to fully cooperate with or to make progress in recommended services. In exchange the State
withdrew the remaining counts with the understanding that, based on the integrated assessment,
DCFS still could require the parents to participate in services related to all withdrawn counts. The
factual basis for the claim was that Chris had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and
bipolar disorder, and that he self-reported a history of PTSD. Both parents had open DCFS cases
with I.D.’s siblings where they had been found unfit and not progressed enough in services to be
restored to fitness.
¶ 22 Chris chose not to participate in an integrated assessment in I.D.’s case, claiming he wanted
a lawyer present. Crissy’s integrated assessment indicated that the primary concerns were
“minimization, avoidance, and denial[.]” The assessment reported that Crissy was placing the
-8-
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
needs of herself and Chris above those of the children. The assessment recommended that Crissy
complete a psychological evaluation.
¶ 23 The trial court twice reserved the permanency goals in part to allow Crissy time to complete
a psychological evaluation. A permanency hearing was held on April 21, 2023. At that hearing
both the State and GAL requested that the goal be changed to substitute care pending termination.
DCFS recommended that the goal should not be changed until Crissy had an opportunity to
complete a parenting capacity assessment. The trial court agreed that the goal should be changed
to substitute care pending determination of termination of parental rights. The trial court found
that neither Chris nor Crissy had made reasonable efforts or reasonable and substantial progress.
¶ 24 On October 13, 2023, the State filed petitions to terminate parental rights in each of the
children’s cases. The petitions alleged that Chris and Crissy were unfit in that they failed to: (1)
maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West
2022)); (2) protect the minors from conditions within their environment injurious to their welfare
(id. § 1(D)(g)); or (3) make reasonable efforts to correct conditions that were the basis for removal
or to make reasonable progress toward return during the previous three nine-month periods for the
older children and in the last nine-month period in the case of I.D. (id. § 1(D)(m)).
¶ 25 The parental fitness hearing was held on November 2, 3, and 30, 2023.
¶ 26 At the hearing, Chris gave limited testimony via Zoom before invoking his fifth
amendment right against self-incrimination and refusing to answer additional questions. Chris
testified that he and Crissy were married in July 2021. Chris stated that his criminal attorney,
Patrick Campanelli, advised him not to testify regarding anything related to his ongoing criminal
case. He refused to answer questions regarding where he lived or who he lived with in June 2021,
what the state of his home was, whether he was licensed to sell marijuana, and whether there were
-9-
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
safes located in the home.
¶ 27 He denied asking anyone for help regarding his mental health on June 11, 2021. He
admitted to being taken to the hospital for a concussion and stated that he did not receive any
medication following his discharge. He testified that he did not have and had never had mental
health issues or needed medication for mental illness. He did not believe that the children should
have been removed from his care. Chris completed a Partner Abuse Intervention Program (PAIP)
assessment at Braden Counseling Center, and the result of the evaluation was that he was
recommended to participate in the program. He stopped going to Braden when he was not assigned
a new therapist, claiming that his therapist was lying on the reports. He then refused to answer any
further questions.
¶ 28 The trial court took note of the fact that the device or account Chris had used to log in to
Zoom listed “Crissy” as the name of the participant.
¶ 29 Kelsey Flynn was Chris’s therapist at Braden Counseling Center. She testified that she first
met with Chris in September 2021. They met for a total of nine sessions before Chris stopped
showing up. During those sessions Chris would not discuss why the children were removed from
his care nor take any responsibility. He mentioned that what was being said was untrue and
attempted to explain the condition of the house by saying that the dog had tracked in mud. Chris
also stated that he had an ongoing criminal case and refused to discuss the events of June 11, 2021,
saying that his attorney had advised him not to talk about it. Ultimately, Chris was unsuccessfully
discharged from treatment.
¶ 30 Dwayne Thomas was Chris’s PAIP counselor at Braden Counseling Center. Thomas
testified that Chris attended a PAIP evaluation on February 22, 2022, and was found to be
appropriate for PAIP counseling, but refused to participate further, saying he wanted to do his
- 10 -
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
PAIP counseling in Cook County. During the assessment Chris was aggravated and argumentative.
Eventually, Chris had to be asked to leave.
¶ 31 Tina Varney, the family’s placement caseworker from DCFS, testified as follows: Chris
and Crissy had both been recommended to individual therapy along with parenting classes and
coaching. Chris was also recommended for a substance abuse assessment and domestic violence
consultation.
¶ 32 Apart from one occasion early on at which Chris indicated that he had mood swings, Chris
never acknowledged that he had any mental health issues. He went to Braden Counseling Center
for individual therapy and a domestic violence consultation, which ultimately led to a
recommendation that he participate in PAIP counseling. Chris claimed that his therapist and the
PAIP counselor at Braden were lying about him and stopped attending Braden.
¶ 33 Both parents completed parenting classes but were never able to move to unsupervised
visits. Crissy completed parenting coaching with limited success, whereas Chris was unable to
complete parenting coaching due to his incarceration. Neither Chris nor Crissy was able to
complete family therapy as it was not deemed to be therapeutically appropriate given that neither
of them demonstrated that they had accepted responsibility for the reason the children were placed
into DCFS’s care.
¶ 34 Varney testified that the parents had inappropriate conversations regarding the children’s
cases. They told the children that DCFS lies and that they were fighting DCFS. They told the
children they were having a baby, but that it was a family secret and not to tell DCFS. Additionally,
while Chris was incarcerated, Crissy told the children that he was in quarantine, which caused the
children distress as they feared for their father’s health.
¶ 35 Additionally, officers from the Elgin police department testified regarding the condition of
- 11 -
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
the home on June 11, 2021, corroborating the condition of the house depicted in the body camera
footage.
¶ 36 The trial court found that the State had demonstrated Chris’s and Crissy’s unfitness on all
of the grounds set forth in its petitions for termination of parental rights. In making its ruling as to
fitness, the trial court made the following statement regarding the credibility of the witnesses.
“So I have assessed the credibility of the witnesses and I find that all of the non-
party witnesses were credible. I find that the testimony of both of the parents was
informative regarding their priorities not being reunification with their children. I find that
the demeanor of both of the parents should be stated for the record because the cold record
will not appropriately reflect their demeanors necessarily.
***
In relation to [Chris’s] testimony, I also found his testimony wholly not credible.
He was largely emotional until Sergeant Lalley began to testify at which point he began
constant texting with his attorney, which is perfectly fine that he is texting his attorney, but
it was something interesting that that was the only portion of the testimony that resulted in
that. He was also obviously very evasive on the court date when I asked him where he was
appearing from. He said the library. And when I asked him to show me around the room,
he disconnected and he never reconnected, which resulted in the order that he was to appear
here today, which he has done.”
¶ 37 A best interest hearing was conducted on January 10, 2024. At that hearing, Varney
testified as follows: A.D., M.D., C.D., and I.D. were placed in traditional foster care with Dave
and Laura K. The home was a very large two-and-a-half bath home with a “bonus room.” Each of
the children had their own area to sleep and separate areas to play in the home. Dave and Laura
- 12 -
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
paid for A.D. and M.D. to attend a private school in Elgin, as they were not satisfied with the
quality of education the children were receiving from public school. C.D. attended preschool
through the school district because it had a speech therapy program which was unavailable through
a private school. Varney observed that A.D., M.D., C.D., and I.D. seek out Dave and Laura for
comfort while at their foster home. They would initiate hugs and physical affection and appeared
to be bonded to Dave and Laura.
¶ 38 Varney continued that Dave and Laura were committed to providing for the children’s
needs and were willing to grant permanency to the children. Because Dave and Laura were in their
sixties, they were required to obtain a medical release to be considered for permanent placement.
They had done so, and the release found them to be in good health to care for the children.
¶ 39 T.D. was placed with his maternal grandparents, Madge and John F. T.D.’s half-brother,
Crissy’s adult son from a prior relationship, also lived in the home. Dave and Laura had discussed
sibling visitation with Madge, and they were all willing to continue sibling visitation should they
adopt the children. They had even scheduled additional visits with T.D. on occasions where one
of the children had to miss a sibling visitation with Chris and Crissy.
¶ 40 Adoption had not yet been discussed with the children, however, M.D. expressed that
Crissy was crying during their most recent visit and told M.D. that she was crying because she was
worried that the children would be adopted. There was no question in Varney’s opinion that the
children loved Chris and Crissy.
¶ 41 Crissy testified that she believed it was in the best interests of the children for them to be
with her. In addition to visitations, Crissy attended any of the children’s events she was able to,
like report card pick up and choir practices. She testified that T.D. was struggling with his
placement because he has a strong bond with M.D. who is his best friend. She further testified that
- 13 -
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
A.D. and M.D. did not identify Dave and Laura as their mom and dad.
¶ 42 Chris did not testify at the best interests hearing.
¶ 43 According to the guardian ad litem’s permanency reports, I.D. was bonded with Dave and
Laura and knew no other home. She called them “Mama” and “Dada”.
¶ 44 A.D. was thriving under Laura and Dave’s care, participating in two different choirs,
church services, and summer camps involving coding, science, and robotics. He bonded with Dave
over shared interests in the family’s fish tanks, cooking, gardening, and music. A.D. had made
several friends at school and participated in playdates. However, in therapy A.D. stated that he
wants to go home, and says things like, “I know my parents won’t fight anymore.” He referred to
his foster parents as Mr. Dave and Miss Laura.
¶ 45 A.D. has been diagnosed with autism and Laura and Dave are in regular communication
with this therapist to make sure they are meeting his therapeutic needs. Likewise, they have worked
with A.D.’s school to ensure he receives the educational services he needs.
¶ 46 The permanency reports indicated that M.D. was likewise thriving under Laura and Dave’s
care. She had made friends in the neighborhood and participated in dance and gymnastics. She
would refer to Dave and Laura as Big Daddy and Sweet Mama, monickers originated by C.D. She
had a good understanding of what was going on around her with regard to the proceedings. In
therapy, she stated that she does not want to go home but also does not want to be adopted. In play
therapy, she stated if she found a treasure box, she would give the treasure to the judge for “keeping
her safe.”
¶ 47 C.D. was making progress in his speech therapy under Dave and Laura’s care. Though he
was too young to express his wishes regarding care, the reports stated that he is bonded with Dave
and Laura, giving them the monikers Big Daddy and Sweet Mama.
- 14 -
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
¶ 48 Regarding T.D., the separation from his parents and siblings had been difficult. Throughout
the pendency of the case, T.D. participated in two partial hospitalization programs, exhibiting
behaviors consistent with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, and anxiety. He
demonstrated extreme anger and an inability to control his emotions. He has also demonstrated
suicidal ideation, saying things like “I’m tired of everyone lying to me.” His therapist believed that
he needs a supportive permanent placement. T.D. was affectionate towards his grandparents and
spoke positively about his half-brother.
¶ 49 Following argument, the trial court found it was in the best interests of the children to
terminate Chris and Crissy’s parental rights. In doing so, the trial court emphasized the need for
stability for all of the children, and highlighted the ways in which they were cared for in their
placements.
¶ 50 Chris timely appealed.
¶ 51 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 52 Counsel’s motion states that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and has concluded that
there are no meritorious issues to be raised on appeal. In accordance with In re Alexa J., 345 Ill.
App. 3d 985 (2003), counsel has identified two potential issues. The first is that Baumgart’s sudden
withdrawal and admitted lack of knowledge regarding termination proceedings may have risen to
the level of unreasonable assistance of counsel. The second was a concern raised by Chris that his
side of the story was not expressed during the trial. Counsel otherwise states that his review of the
record could identify no justiciable issue regarding procedural due process or issues of evidentiary
introduction, admissibility, or sufficiency.
¶ 53 Addressing Baumgart’s representation, we agree with counsel that there is no meritorious
issue regarding unreasonable assistance of counsel. The right to counsel in proceedings under the
- 15 -
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
Juvenile Court Act of 1987 is provided by section 1-5(1) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/1-5 West
2022)), not the United States Constitution. In re Br. M., 2021 IL 125969, ¶ 41. Though there are
differences between criminal law proceedings and proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act of
1987, the Illinois Supreme Court has endorsed the use of the Strickland standard as “a helpful
structure” in evaluating a claim of unreasonable assistance of counsel under the Act. In re Br. M.,
2021 IL 125969, ¶ 43.
¶ 54 Under Strickland, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a party must
demonstrate that their counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness” and that such a shortcoming was prejudicial in that “there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have
been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-94 (1984).
¶ 55 Although a review of the record does raise concerns regarding the advice Chris and Crissy
were receiving from Baumgart, the record also demonstrates that the trial court took remedial steps
to ensure that any failures in Baumgart’s representation did not result in prejudice to the parties.
The record indicates that Chris and Crissy may not have engaged in certain required services based
on advice from Baumgart that they did not need to complete them. This objectively incorrect advice
would certainly constitute representation that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
However, the trial court immediately appointed conflict counsel to represent Chris, and maintained
the goal of return home within 12 months, rather than change the goal to substitute care pending
termination of parental rights. The trial court did so in order to give the parents an opportunity to
engage in services under the guidance of competent counsel, an opportunity which unfortunately
neither parent took advantage of.
- 16 -
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
¶ 56 As for Chris’s concern that his side of the story was not expressed during trial, this was
largely a result of Chris’s choice to prioritize his criminal defense. Chris refused to discuss the June
11, 2021, incident in any detail with his service providers, and likewise refused to testify when
given the opportunity to do so. Further, Chris’s counsel engaged in robust cross-examination of the
State’s witnesses.
¶ 57 Next, we agree with counsel’s assertion that there were no meritorious procedural due
process issues nor evidentiary issues regarding the trial court’s finding of Chris’s unfitness.
¶ 58 “Under the Juvenile Court Act, parental rights cannot be terminated absent the parent’s
consent unless the court first determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is an
‘unfit person’ as defined by section 1(D) of the Adoption Act [citation].” In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill.
2d 340, 354 (2005).
¶ 59 In the instant case, Chris was found to be unfit based on subsection (b) (“Failure to maintain
a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the child’s welfare.”), (g) (“Failure
to protect the child from conditions within his environment injurious to the child’s welfare.”), and
(m) (“Failure by a parent []to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis
for the removal of the child from the parent during any 9-month period ***.”). 750 ILCS50/1(D)(b),
(g), (m) (West 2022).
¶ 60 The record demonstrates that Chris prioritized his criminal defense over addressing the
problems which resulted in the children being removed from his care. Chris refused to take any
responsibility for why the children were removed from his care, or the fact that he had untreated
mental health conditions, instead claiming that police, DCFS, and his therapists and counselors
were all lying. Additionally, Chris’s recommended services required that he (1) cooperate with
DCFS; (2) maintain safe, adequate, and clean housing; (3) participate in a mental health evaluation
- 17 -
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
and psychiatric evaluation and to comply with recommended treatment through individual therapy;
(4) refrain from criminal conduct; (5) refrain from using drugs and alcohol and undergo a substance
abuse assessment; (6) participate in a domestic violence consultation and comply with
recommendations; (7) participate in family therapy when therapeutically appropriate; and (8) attend
parenting education and coaching. While Chris successfully completed the substance abuse portion
of his services and completed parenting education classes, the record demonstrates that he failed to
participate in individual therapy or even meaningfully acknowledge that he had any mental health
issues, despite being diagnosed with major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. Further, Chris
failed to acknowledge any issues regarding domestic violence despite his 2020 conviction for
domestic violence against Crissy’s mother, the broken furniture in the family home, or the
children’s claims that their parents fought. Additionally, Chris did not complete parenting coaching
as those services were unavailable to him while he was incarcerated. Finally, family therapy was
never deemed therapeutically appropriate due the fact that Chris failed to acknowledge the reason
the children were removed from his care.
¶ 61 Taken together, there is overwhelming evidence to support the trial court’s finding that
Chris was unfit to care for a child, on each basis found by the trial court.
¶ 62 Turning to the trial court’s best interest finding, following an unfitness finding, the focus
shifts to the child. “The issue is no longer whether parental rights can be terminated; the issue is
whether, in light of the child’s needs, parental rights should be terminated. Accordingly, at 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.” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 364 (2004). At a best
interest hearing, the State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it is
in the child’s best interest to terminate the parent’s parental rights. In re Tamera W., 2012 IL App
- 18 -
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
(2d) 111131, ¶ 43. The Juvenile Court Act of 1987 directs that,
“Whenever a ‘best interest’ determination is required, the following factors shall
be considered in the context of the child’s age and developmental needs:
(a) the physical safety and welfare of the child, including food, shelter,
health, and clothing;
(b) the development of the child’s identity;
(c) the child’s background and ties, including familial, cultural, and
religious;
(d) the child’s sense of attachments, including:
(i) where the child actually feels love, attachment, and a sense of
being valued (as opposed to where adults believe the child should feel such
love, attachment, and a sense of being valued);
(ii) the child’s sense of security;
(iii) the child’s sense of familiarity;
(iv) continuity of affection for the child;
(v) the least disruptive placement alternative for the child;
(e) the child’s wishes and long-term goals;
(f) the child’s community ties, including church, school, and friends;
(g) the child’s need for permanence which includes the child’s need for
stability and continuity of relationships with parent figures and with siblings and
other relatives;
(h) the uniqueness of every family and child;
(i) the risks attendant to entering and being in substitute care; and
- 19 -
202 IL App (2d) 240108-U
(j) the preferences of the persons available to care for the child.” 705 ILCS
405/1-3(4.05) (West 2022).
¶ 63 On the advice of his criminal counsel Chris did not testify at the best interests hearing. In
addition to all of the shortcomings in failing to complete his services, Chris is facing multiple felony
charges related to the incident of June 11, 2021. These include two non-probationable Class X
felonies. Weighed against the children’s need for permanency and the evidence regarding the care
the children are receiving in their foster placements, we see no basis for challenging the trial court’s
best interest finding.
¶ 64 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 65 For the reasons stated, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the
judgment of the circuit court of Kane County.
¶ 66 Affirmed.
- 20 -