In re O.T. , 2024 IL App (4th) 240107-U ( 2024 )

NOTICE 2024 IL App (4th) 240107-UThis Order was filed under
FILED
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-24-0107 May 21, 2024
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 O.T., a Minor ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) McLean County
Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 23JA83
v. )
Velus B., ) Honorable
Respondent-Appellant). ) J. Brian Goldrick,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Cavanagh and Justice Steigmann concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court’s finding of unfitness was not
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 Respondent, Velus B., appeals from the trial court’s order finding him unfit to care
for his minor child, O.T. (born July 2019). The court also found the minor’s mother, Joyce T.,
unfit, but she is not a party to this appeal. Respondent argues the court’s finding of unfitness was
against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On September 7, 2023, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship
alleging O.T. and her four siblings, Jon. J., Jos. J., N.J., and N.T.-J., were abused under section
405/2-3(2)(v) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(2)(v) (West 2022)).
Respondent is only the biological father of O.T., and Joyce was exercising her parenting time with
O.T. when the alleged abuse occurred. The petition alleged Joyce inflicted excessive corporal
punishment by repeatedly striking N.J. with a belt in the presence of the other minors. The Illinois
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) became involved when it received a report
on September 5, 2023, that N.J. arrived at school with a bruise in the shape of a handprint on his
right shoulder. A DCFS investigator spoke with the minors and observed N.J. had a bloody nose,
bruising on his shoulder, and significant bruising all over his back and chest area. N.J. stated he
was in a car accident with his family. The other minors claimed their mother hit N.J. with her fist
and a belt, specifically the belt buckle, because he spilled something on the carpet. During O.T.’s
interview, she acted out the incident showing how her mother hit N.J. with a belt. Joyce confessed
to police that she hit N.J. with a belt, and she was arrested for aggravated battery to a child.
¶5 A shelter care report provided both parents had previous involvement with DCFS.
Respondent was indicated in January 2019 for risk of physical injury as a result of a domestic
violence incident with Joyce. The report also provided respondent had a criminal history, which
included charges and/or convictions for assault, larceny, burglary, forgery, a drug offense, a
weapon offense, and invasion of privacy. Respondent was most recently arrested two months prior
to the filing of the State’s petition, in July 2023, for domestic battery.
¶6 The trial court held a shelter care hearing. Joyce stipulated to probable cause and
the immediate and urgent necessity for removal of the minors. The court found the same, granted
temporary custody of the minors to DCFS, and appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL). Respondent
was not present but later appeared before the court and was made aware of the allegations and
admonished to contact and cooperate with DCFS.
-2-
¶7 On November 8, 2023, the trial court held an adjudicatory hearing. Joyce admitted
the allegations in the State’s petition, and the court found the allegations proven by a
preponderance of the evidence and adjudicated the minors as abused.
¶8 On December 14, 2023, DCFS filed a dispositional report. Respondent completed
an integrated assessment on November 1, 2023, after he canceled two appointments. Respondent
stated he had a good relationship with his family, and they provided him with a support system.
He had been employed by a distribution center for the past several years, and 42 people work in
his department. He was responsible for hiring staff and communicating with various government
agencies. When respondent was in a dating relationship with Joyce, he moved her into his home
with his mother. His mother and Joyce had a lot of conflict. Respondent stated Joyce had a difficult
past and had a lot of anger and aggression. When they had simple disputes, Joyce would want to
fight, and the police would be called. Joyce reported in her integrated assessment that respondent
was physically and verbally abusive toward her. When Joyce gave birth to O.T., they were already
separated and established an equal parenting time arrangement where each parent had O.T. every
six months. O.T. last resided with respondent in July 2023.
¶9 Respondent provided he was no longer dating his girlfriend from July 2023 because
of the domestic battery charge. He explained his girlfriend was often jealous, and when he returned
home late after helping his sister with a flat tire, she accused him of lying to her. She blocked the
door when he tried to leave, which led to the domestic battery charge. However, he claimed he did
not touch her. The charge was dismissed after a grand jury had returned a “no bill.” Respondent
had been sentenced to terms in the Illinois Department of Corrections three times and was last
released in 2016 or 2017. Upon his release, he decided he was going to change and would no
longer get in trouble. Respondent denied any history of substance abuse. He had visitation with
-3-
O.T. on Tuesday evenings and Saturday afternoons. He was inconsistent with his visits and, as of
November 17, 2023, cancelled his Saturday visits going forward due to his work schedule.
¶ 10 As to respondent’s progress, the dispositional report noted he cooperated with his
caseworker, had stable housing as he lived with his grandmother and mother in a two-story home,
had stable employment, interacted with O.T. on a minimal basis, was waitlisted for a domestic
violence assessment, and was to begin drug testing in December 2023. The report recommended
the trial court find respondent unfit and set a goal of return home within 12 months.
¶ 11 On December 19, 2023, the trial court held a dispositional hearing and took notice
of the dispositional report. Respondent was not present. Respondent’s counsel provided respondent
was quite communicative with her, but she could not get in touch with him for a couple of days
leading up to the hearing. The State asked the court to make the minors wards of the court because
both parents were unfit. As to respondent, the State argued he needed to cooperate, maintain stable
housing and employment, undergo a domestic violence assessment and complete any
recommended treatment, pass drug screenings, and visit regularly. The GAL agreed with the
State’s recommendations. The court agreed with the State that respondent needed to be assessed
for domestic violence and other services. The court noted respondent’s housing and employment
were not concerns. The court entered an order finding respondent unfit, made the minors wards of
the court, and set the permanency goal to return home within 12 months.
¶ 12 This appeal followed.
¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 14 The Act provides a two-step process for the trial court to decide whether a minor
should be removed from her parents’ custody and made a ward of the court. In re Z.L., 2021 IL
126931, ¶ 58. The first step is the adjudicatory hearing on the State’s petition for adjudication of
-4-
wardship, and the court must consider whether the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent. 705
ILCS 405/2-18(1) (West 2022). If the court makes such a finding, then it determines whether it is
consistent with the health, safety, and best interest of the minor and the public that the minor be
made a ward of the court. 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2) (West 2022). “At this point, the trial court may
consider the acts and/or omissions of the parents.” Z.L., 2021 IL 126931, ¶ 60. A finding that a
parent is either unfit, unable, or unwilling provides a proper basis for the removal of a minor. In re
Lakita B., 297 Ill. App. 3d 985, 992 (1998).
¶ 15 The trial court’s dispositional order will be reversed only if its findings of fact are
against the manifest weight of the evidence or if it committed an abuse of discretion by selecting
an inappropriate dispositional order. In re Al. S., 2017 IL App (4th) 160737, ¶ 41. A trial court’s
finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence when the opposite conclusion is clearly
evident. In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d 476, 498 (2002). This deferential standard of review recognizes the
trial court is in a much better position to observe the witnesses, assess credibility, and weigh the
evidence. In re Custody of H.J., 2021 IL App (4th) 200401, ¶ 23. “Moreover, due to the delicacy
and difficulty of child custody cases, it is well settled that wide discretion is vested in the trial
judge to an even greater degree than any ordinary appeal to which the familiar manifest weight
principle is applied.” (Internal quotation marks omitted). Lakita B., 297 Ill. App. 3d at 994.
Accordingly, we will not substitute the trial court’s judgment with our own simply because we
might have reached a different conclusion. H.J., 2021 IL App (4th) 200401, ¶ 23.
¶ 16 In this case, respondent argues the trial court’s dispositional order is against the
manifest weight of the evidence because he is fit to care for O.T. and O.T.’s best interest would
not be jeopardized if she remained in his custody. Respondent notes he is O.T.’s biological father,
is able and willing to care for her, has no substance abuse issues, is employed full-time and has
-5-
stable housing, and has been a coparent and caregiver for O.T. The State argues the court’s finding
of unfitness was proper because respondent has a criminal history involving drugs and domestic
violence issues with two different individuals.
¶ 17 After carefully reviewing the record, we cannot say it is clear the trial court should
have reached an opposite conclusion as to respondent’s fitness. The record demonstrates
respondent had yet to complete any drug screens or undergo a domestic violence assessment at the
time of the dispositional hearing, the delay of which appears to be attributable to his twice-
rescheduled integrated assessment. The drug screens and domestic violence assessment are
particularly important in this case, where both drugs and domestic violence appeared in
respondent’s history. Respondent was also inconsistent with his two weekly scheduled visits with
O.T. and voluntarily cancelled one of his two weekly visits until further notice. Although
respondent maintained appropriate employment and housing, the aforementioned issues
nonetheless rendered him unfit to care for O.T. Under the circumstances presented, we find the
court’s dispositional finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 18 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 19 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 20 Affirmed.
-6-