J.S.

2023 IL App (5th) 220713-UNOTICE
NOTICE
Decision filed 02/16/23. The
This order was filed under
text of this decision may be NO. 5-22-0713
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
changed or corrected prior to
not precedent except in the
the filing of a Petition for IN THE limited circumstances allowed
Rehearing or the disposition of
under Rule 23(e)(1).
the same.
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
In re J.S., a Minor ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) Saline County.
)
Petitioner-Appellee, )
)
v. )
) No. 21-JA-22
Tonya S. and Matthew S., )
)
Respondents ) Honorable
) Amanda Byassee Gott,
(Tonya S., Respondent-Appellant)). ) Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE MOORE delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Boie and Justice Welch concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Where the only witnesses testified that respondent had made unsatisfactory
progress and recommended that her parental rights be terminated, the circuit court’s
order to that effect was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. As any
argument to the contrary would clearly lack merit, we grant leave to appointed
counsel to withdraw and affirm the circuit court’s judgment.
¶2 Respondent, Tonya S., appeals the circuit court’s order terminating her parental rights to
J.S. and awarding custody to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) with the
authority to consent to his adoption. Respondent’s appointed counsel on appeal has concluded
that there is no arguably meritorious contention that the court erred in so doing. Accordingly, he
has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel
1
has notified respondent of his motion and this court provided her with ample opportunity to file a
response, but she has not done so. After reviewing the record and considering counsel’s motion,
we agree that this appeal presents no issue of even arguable merit. Therefore, we grant counsel
leave to withdraw and affirm the circuit court’s judgment.
¶3 BACKGROUND
¶4 The State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship alleging that the minor was neglected
in that, at the time of his birth, his mother, respondent, tested positive for amphetamine and
methamphetamine, respondent had a history of substance abuse and had failed to cooperate with
prior service plans, and respondent had another child who had been adjudicated neglected.
¶5 At the initial shelter-care hearing, Stephany Dutton testified that the as-yet-unnamed minor
had been taken into protective custody the previous weekend in response to a report that its mother
had amphetamine and methamphetamine in her system at the time of his birth. Respondent
admitted to another caseworker that she had “relapsed on methamphetamine.” Dutton had been
involved in a previous case in which respondent delivered a child exposed to the same drugs.
Dutton spoke to the caseworker on that case, who informed her that respondent had “done nothing
on the service plan” and did not visit with the child the prior month. Dutton opined that an
immediate and urgent necessity existed to remove the child from its mother’s care.
¶6 The court found probable cause to believe that the minor was neglected. The court entered
a shelter care order and scheduled an adjudicatory hearing.
¶7 At the hearing, respondent stipulated to counts III and IV of the petition, which alleged,
respectively, that respondent had another child who was adjudicated neglected and for whom a
petition to terminate parental rights was pending and that J.S. was born with amphetamine and
methamphetamine in his system. Two other counts were dismissed.
2
¶8 In September 2022, the State moved to terminate respondent’s parental rights. At an
October 18, 2022, hearing, caseworker Aubrey Berry testified that respondent’s parental rights to
J.S.’s brother, Jo. S., had been terminated. Prior to leaving the agency in August, she participated
in reviewing four of respondent’s service plans. She was rated “unsatisfactory” each time, “due
to an overall lack of progress in services.” Although respondent completed some tasks, she did
not complete enough to warrant a satisfactory rating. Respondent had refused all drug testing
throughout the history of the case with the exception of one test, which was positive.
¶9 Kelsie Arp, the case supervisor, testified similarly to Berry. She noted that the service
plans were explained to respondent. She agreed that respondent had not made satisfactory progress
and, specifically, that she had not complied with drug-testing requirements.
¶ 10 The parents had attended visitations regularly. They brought the minor gifts on his
birthday. Respondent had completed an online parenting class.
¶ 11 The circuit court found that it was faced with “a mother who refused or would not take
drug tests in this matter,” despite the fact that her drug use was what had brought the minor to the
attention of the child welfare system in the first place. Accordingly, the court concluded that the
State had proved respondent unfit.
¶ 12 The cause proceeded immediately to a best-interests hearing. Arp testified that J.S. had
been placed with the same family as his brother. The foster parents were willing to adopt both
children. The child was bonded with the foster parents, who provided for his needs. J.S. loved his
brother and the foster parents.
¶ 13 Although respondent’s counsel cross-examined the witnesses, respondent did not testify or
present any evidence. The court ordered custody to remain with DCFS and changed the
permanency goal to adoption, and respondent timely appealed.
3
¶ 14 ANALYSIS
¶ 15 Respondent’s appointed counsel concludes that there is no reasonably meritorious
argument that the court erred in terminating respondent’s parental rights with a view toward the
minor’s adoption. We agree.
¶ 16 We note that the evidence in this case was understandably similar to that in the case of
J.S.’s brother, Jo. S. In respondent’s appeal in that case, we granted appellate counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment terminating respondent’s parental rights and
making the minor a ward of the court. In re Jordan S., 2022 IL App (5th) 220516-U, ¶ 23.
¶ 17 Before committing a minor to the custody of DCFS, a circuit court must first decide
whether his or her parent is unfit, unable, or unwilling to care for the child, and whether the
minor’s best interests will be jeopardized if the minor remains in the custody of his or
her parents. In re M.M., 2016 IL 119932, ¶ 21 (citing 705 ILCS 405/2-27(1) (West 2012)). We
will reverse a circuit court’s finding of unfitness only if the finding is against the manifest weight
of the evidence. In re A.W., 231 Ill. 2d 92, 104 (2008).
¶ 18 The motion to terminate respondent’s parental rights alleged that she failed to “make
reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child from
the parent” during the previous nine months. See 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2020). The
witnesses testified that respondent was consistently rated unsatisfactory in achieving the service
plan objectives. Both witnesses opined that it was in the minor’s best interests to terminate
respondent’s parental rights and allow the minor to be adopted by the foster parents. Respondent
presented no contrary evidence.
¶ 19 Although the witnesses testified that respondent had visited the minor and completed a
parenting class, both testified that respondent had consistently failed to undergo drug testing. As
4
the circuit court observed, this was clearly critical given that the minor was born with drugs in his
system, which was the reason that his case came to the attention of DCFS. Faced with
uncontradicted evidence that respondent’s progress was unsatisfactory throughout the pendency
of the case, we cannot say that the circuit court’s findings were against the manifest weight of the
evidence.
¶ 20 CONCLUSION
¶ 21 Accordingly, we agree with counsel that this appeal presents no issue of even arguable
merit. We grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm the circuit court’s judgment.
¶ 22 Motion granted; judgment affirmed.
5