People v. Brenda H.

SECOND DIVISION
August 26, 2008
No. 1-08-0621
In re L.H., a Minor ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois ) Cook County
)
Petitioner-Appellee, )
)
v. )
)
Brenda H., ) Honorable
) Mary Lane Mikva,
Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE KARNEZIS delivered the opinion of the court:
Respondent Brenda H. appeals from an order of the circuit court finding
respondent's minor daughter, L.H., to be a neglected minor pursuant to section 2-
3(1)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (the Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a) (West
2006)). The court found respondent neglected L.H. by refusing to allow L.H. to return
home after a hospitalization and refusing to participate in treatments or services to aid
L.H. The court made L.H. a ward of the court and assigned the Department of Children
and Family Services (DCFS) as her guardian. Respondent argues the court's finding of
neglect was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.
Background
1-08-0621
L.H. was born in October 1991. Respondent adopted her in May 2000. On
January 23, 2007, when L.H. was 15 years old, she was admitted to Hartgrove Hospital
for a medical and psychiatric assessment after she ran away from home. She was
diagnosed with bipolar disorder, with severely disorganized thought patterns resulting in
poor judgment. On March 1, 2007, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship
regarding L.H., alleging she was neglected due to lack of necessary care by respondent
because respondent refused to pick L.H. up from the hospital, to cooperate with
postadoptive services and to create an alternate care plan for L.H. On March 14, 2007,
the court held a hearing on the petition. Respondent stipulated to the allegations in the
petition and the court found probable cause to believe L.H. was neglected. It granted
DCFS temporary custody of L.H. Respondent informed the court she did not want any
visits with L.H. She subsequently informed the court that she wished to consent to
surrender of her parental rights but the court refused to accept her consent given that it
was not in L.H.'s best interests to do so.
Respondent filed assorted supplemental petitions for adjudication of wardship
alleging L.H. was dependent and in need of authoritative intervention pursuant to
section 2-4(1)(c) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(c) (West 2006)) because, through no
fault of her parent, she was without proper medical, remedial or other care necessary
for her well-being. Respondent asserted it was in L.H.'s best interests to be declared
dependent pursuant to section 2-4(1)(d) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(d) (West
2006)) because respondent wished to be relieved of her parental rights and
2
1-08-0621
responsibilities toward L.H. so that L.H. could receive the care she needed.
The court held an adjudicatory hearing on December 11, 2007. DCFS child
protection investigator Karen Roberts Dixon testified she was assigned to L.H.'s case
on January 23, 2007, when DCFS received a hotline call that L.H. had left home and
had scratches on her neck and body allegedly inflicted by respondent. She went to
respondent's home in Orland Park and interviewed her about L.H.'s allegations.
Respondent told her she did not want L.H. to return home from the hospital.
Respondent told Dixon DCFS had not given respondent accurate information about
L.H. when she adopted her; something was wrong with L.H.; L.H. "steals all the time"
and "was an embarrassment to her family;" and respondent did not want L.H. back in
her home.
Dixon testified DCFS received another hotline call about L.H. on February 6,
2007, when respondent refused to pick up L.H. at the hospital when she was ready for
discharge. Respondent informed Dixon she was not going to pick up L.H. Dixon held a
meeting with respondent and assorted clinical, adoption and social workers to discuss
L.H.'s discharge and the services available to respondent once L.H. returned home.
Respondent stated L.H. could not return home and was not receptive to the
postadoptive services offered by Dixon and the other staffers. Respondent was
informed she had the responsibility to find an alternative placement for L.H. if L.H. could
not return home. She failed to do so. Instead, she faxed Dixon 20 letters from
respondent's relatives stating they were not able to care for L.H. Dixon found
3
1-08-0621
respondent unreceptive to L.H. coming home and uncooperative with DCFS.
In addition to the January 2007 episode, L.H. had been suspended from school
and received community service for stealing a purse at school a few weeks prior to her
hospital admission, allegedly stolen money from one of her brothers, made prior
allegations of abuse against respondent which proved unfounded and had run away for
a short time two years previously. A psychological evaluation showed L.H. to be
preoccupied with anger and depression directed at respondent as a result of
respondent's refusal to allow L.H. to return home and that L.H. felt abandoned.
Orland Park police officer Henry Scholnveld testified that, at approximately 8
p.m. on January 22, 2007, he and two other officers responded to a call from
respondent that L.H. had left home without clothes on. By the time he arrived at
respondent's home, L.H. had returned and was clothed. Respondent told the officers
she had originally called because L.H. had stolen money and she did not want L.H. at
the house any more. Respondent asked whether the officers could "take [L.H. away]."
The officers suggested a counselor come and try to resolve the situation. To that end,
they transported respondent and L.H. to the police station where they met with a
counselor. On the way to the station, Officer Scholnveld talked with L.H. She told him
she was acting out because she wanted to see her biological mother and siblings. L.H.
did not tell Officer Scholnveld respondent hit her and he saw no signs of abuse on her.
Respondent testified that she adopted L.H. in May 2000. She has three
biological children and two other adopted children. Respondent stated her problems
4
1-08-0621
with L.H. began shortly after the adoption. She said L.H. stole from everyone who
came to respondent's home and from her school teachers and fellow students. L.H.
was reported to the police and suspended for stealing from a teacher in November
2006. Orland Park police first called respondent about L.H. stealing when L.H. was 13.
They next called her because L.H. alleged respondent hit L.H. in the eye with a
hammer. An investigation proved the allegation was unfounded.
Respondent testified she took L.H. to church every week. Starting in 2002, she
had her pastor and his wife counsel L.H. in order to find out what was wrong with her.
Respondent thought something was wrong with L.H. because of her stealing behavior.
Respondent also had her sister and adult children counsel L.H. She never had any
problems with her children in school except with L.H. Her three biological children
graduated as high school valedictorians; one became a surgical nurse and another was
an National Football League player. Her two adoptive sons were on the honor rolls at
their respective schools. L.H. had her own room and was given an allowance of $20
every two weeks.
Respondent stated she was taking care of her handicapped mother and L.H.
poured bleach into respondent's mother's milk, telling respondent she was tired of
cleaning up after old people. Respondent's son saw L.H. pour in the bleach.
Respondent threw the milk away before her mother drank it.
When L.H. ran out of the house nude on January 22, 2007, it was snowing. One
of respondent's sons brought her back. She had run away once before in 2005, at
5
1-08-0621
which time a counselor came to the house to help counsel her at the behest of the
Orland Park police department. Respondent could not remember how often the
counselor came or the counselor's name. Respondent stated she called DCFS for help
with L.H. several times in 2004 or 2005, only to be told she was responsible for L.H.
She did not know what help DCFS had available. She made no other attempts to get
help for L.H. through DCFS.
On December 14, 2007, after closing arguments, the court entered an
adjudication order finding L.H. neglected due to lack of care pursuant to section 2-
3(1)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act because respondent refused to let L.H. return home
after hospitalization or to be involved in her treatment. It found the evidence did not
support respondent's allegation of dependency. The court stated it was clear L.H. did
not have the care she needed and the State met its burden to show this was neglect.
The court noted that there is no difference between the way an adoptive parent and a
biological parent must provide necessary care and, although L.H. "was a really tough
kid," that did not mean respondent did not have a responsibility to address her needs.
The court found respondent not credible on her assertion that L.H. put bleach in her
grandmother's milk and "on several other points." It found no evidence that L.H. was
physically violent toward respondent or her family and, beyond the fact that respondent
found L.H.'s running away and thieving embarrassing, L.H. presented no danger to the
family. It found respondent incredible regarding her efforts to help L.H. and her pastor's
involvement. It found respondent did not visit L.H. at the hospital, had made no
6
1-08-0621
previous attempts at hospitalization, engaged in little professional counseling and was
so uninvolved in the aborted attempt at counseling that she did not recall the
counselor's name.
On February 1, 2008, the court held a dispositional hearing as well as a
permanency hearing. It heard testimony from Chancey Ross, the DCFS case worker
who originally facilitated L.H.'s adoption and was reassigned to L.H.'s case in March
2007. Ross informed the court that L.H. had been in two placements since leaving
respondent's home but was currently in a shelter. L.H. had not wanted to live at the first
placement with her maternal biological grandmother and ran away from the second
placement in a foster home. She disappeared for 21 days. Ross stated respondent
had not made herself available to be assessed for services; had never contacted Ross
or DCFS for services; had never inquired about having L.H. return home; had never
visited L.H.; had L.H.'s gym shoes returned to her when L.H. was hospitalized, leaving
her only a dress and jacket; and, in May 2007, told Ross she did not want to be
involved in L.H.'s case, did not want to talk to DCFS and did not want DCFS to visit her
home regarding L.H.
The court found that respondent was unable and unwilling to parent L.H. but
declined to find her unfit. It stated it was respondent's responsibility to care for L.H., to
try to address her needs and work with the agency to address those needs, regardless
of what L.H. might want. It terminated temporary custody, made L.H. a ward of the
court and placed DCFS as her guardian with the right to place her. The court set
7
1-08-0621
"return home" as the goal. Respondent informed the court that she wanted to
relinquish her parental rights. DCFS objected and the court refused to accept her
consents to relinquishment of her rights.
On February 29, 2008, respondent filed a pro se notice of appeal from the
court's December 14, 2007, "[f]inding after an adjudication hearing of abuse for lack of
care" and February 1, 2008, "[d]ispositional findings of unable & unwilling."
Analysis
Respondent's sole argument on appeal is that the court's finding of neglect is
against the manifest weight of the evidence and the case should be remanded for a
finding that L.H. is a dependent minor in need of authoritative intervention. The State
has the burden to prove allegations of neglect or dependency by a preponderance of
the evidence. In re Christina M., 333 Ill. App. 3d 1030, 1034, 777 N.E.2d 655, 658
(2002); In re Christopher S., 364 Ill. App. 3d 76, 88, 845 N.E.2d 830, 839 (2006). On
review, we will not reverse a court's finding of neglect or dependency unless the finding
is against the manifest weight of the evidence, i.e., the opposite conclusion is clearly
evident from the record. In re Christina M., 333 Ill. App. 3d at 1034, 777 N.E.2d at 658;
In re Christopher S., 364 Ill. App. 3d at 86, 845 N.E.2d at 839-40.
Pursuant to the Act, a “neglected minor” is a child "under 18 years of age who is
not receiving the proper or necessary support, education as required by law, or medical
or other remedial care recognized under State law as necessary for a minor's well-being,
or other care necessary for his or her well-being, including adequate food, clothing and
8
1-08-0621
shelter, or who is abandoned by his or her parents." 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a) (West
2006); In re Christopher S., 364 Ill. App. 3d at 88, 845 N.E.2d at 840. “Neglect” is
generally defined as the failure to exercise the care that circumstances justly demand
and includes both unintentional and willful disregard of parental duties. In re Christopher
S., 364 Ill. App. 3d at 88, 845 N.E.2d at 840; In re Christina M., 333 Ill. App. 3d at 1034,
777 N.E.2d at 659. Because "neglect" has no “ 'fixed and measured meaning,' ” it takes
its content from the specific circumstances of each case. In re Christopher S., 364 Ill.
App. 3d at 88, 845 N.E.2d at 840, quoting In re Christina M., 333 Ill. App. 3d at 1034,
777 N.E.2d at 659. Any case involving an adjudication of neglect and wardship must,
therefore, be decided on the basis of its own unique circumstances. In re Christopher
S., 364 Ill. App. 3d at 88, 845 N.E.2d at 840; In re Christina M., 333 Ill. App. 3d at 1034,
777 N.E.2d at 659. The court's finding that L.H. was a neglected minor is not against
the manifest weight of the evidence.
The evidence shows respondent willfully refused to provide for or assist L.H. after
her discharge from the hospital. Respondent refused to let L.H. return home after her
hospitalization, refused to cooperate with DCFS, ordered DCFS not to contact her with
regard to L.H. and informed DCFS she wanted nothing more to do with L.H. As the
court noted, L.H. may be a tough child to handle but she is still respondent's child,
adopted or not, and it is respondent's responsibility to do everything she can to care for
L.H. and provide for her well-being. Respondent willfully failed to do so. Granted,
respondent fed, clothed, housed and provided an allowance to L.H. for seven years and
9
1-08-0621
took her to church every week. But when things got difficult, respondent did not provide
the care L.H. needed. She refused to allow L.H. to return home and cut off all contact
with her, refusing to visit her at the hospital, to call her or to let her adoptive brothers
contact her.
Despite respondent's assertion that L.H. was a problem from the time respondent
adopted her, respondent never sought help for L.H. or herself beyond asking a few of
her relatives and her pastor and his wife to counsel L.H. Respondent did not pursue
postadoption support from DCFS, did not continue the counseling instigated by the
Orland Park police department, did not participate in any of the programs or services
offered by DCFS during and after L.H.'s hospitalization and did not seek alternate
placement arrangements for L.H. Instead, respondent abandoned L.H. for no reason
other than L.H. was an embarrassment to respondent and her family. As the court
found, where, as here, there is no evidence that L.H. was violent or a danger toward
respondent or other family members, respondent's response to L.H.'s misbehavior
constituted neglect.
The evidence does not support respondent's assertion that L.H. is a dependent
minor requiring authoritative intervention. The Act defines a "dependent minor" as a
child "under 18 years of age *** who is without proper medical or other remedial care
recognized under State law or other care necessary for his or her well being through no
fault, neglect, or lack of concern by his parents.” 705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(c) (West 2004); In
re Christopher S., 364 Ill. App. 3d at 86, 845 N.E.2d at 839. Respondent affirmatively
10
1-08-0621
locked L.H. out of her home against the advice of the hospital and DCFS, refused to
cooperate with DCFS in developing a care plan for L.H., refused to provide alternate
placement for L.H. and refused to consider L.H.'s return to her home. Clearly,
respondent is responsible for placing L.H. in her current position, and the evidence
supports classifying L.H. as neglected rather than dependent. See In re Christina M.,
333 Ill. App. 3d at 1035-36, 777 N.E.2d at 659-60.
Moreover, L.H. does not meet the definition of a minor requiring authoritative
intervention, which the Act defines as
"any minor under 18 years of age (1) who is (a) absent from home without
consent of parent, guardian or custodian, or (b) beyond the control of his or her
parent, guardian or custodian, in circumstances which constitute a substantial or
immediate danger to the minor's physical safety; and (2) who, after being taken
into limited custody for the period provided for in this Section and offered interim
crisis intervention services, where available, refuses to return home after the
minor and his or her parent, guardian or custodian cannot agree to an
arrangement for an alternative voluntary residential placement or to the
continuation of such placement." 705 ILCS 405/3-3 (West 2006).
L.H. is absent from home because respondent does not want her at home, has acted
affirmatively to keep her from home and essentially given her consent to be absent from
home. There is no evidence L.H. was beyond respondent's control and was an
immediate or substantial danger to herself, only that she was an embarrassment. The
11
1-08-0621
fact that L.H. is in the State's care is entirely due to respondent's desire to be rid of her.
The court did not err in finding the evidence does not support a finding that L.H. is a
dependent minor in need of authoritative intervention. We affirm the court's finding L.H.
a neglected minor due to respondent's lack of care.
Although respondent filed a notice of appeal from the court's "[d]ispositional
findings of unable & unwilling," she does not make any argument contesting these
findings on appeal and has, therefore, waived this issue. 210 Ill.2d R. 341(h)(7); People
v. Wendt, 163 Ill. 2d 346, 351, 645 N.E.2d 179, 181 (1994) (points not raised or argued
in an opening appellate brief are waived).
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.
Affirmed.
SOUTH and HALL, J.J., concur.
12
1-08-0621
REPORTER OF DECISIONS - ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT
(Front Sheet to be Attached to Each case)
In re L.H., a Minor
(The People of the State of Illinois
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Brenda H.,
Respondent-Appellant).
No. 1-08-0621
Appellate Court of Illinois
First District, Second Division
August 26, 2008
JUSTICE KARNEZIS delivered the opinion of the court.
SOUTH and HALL, JJ., concur.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.
The Honorable Mary Lane Mikva, Judge Presiding.
For APPELLANT: Edwin Burnette, Public Defender of Cook County (Denise R. Avant, of
counsel)
For APPELLEE - MINOR: Office of the Cook County Public Guardian (Robert F. Harris,
Kass A. Plain and Michelle V. Hamilton, of counsel)
13
1-08-0621
For APPELLEE - STATE OF ILLINOIS: Richard A. Devine, State's Attorney, County of
Cook (Assistant State's Attorneys James Fitzgerald, Nancy Kisicki and Grace E. Zaya, of
counsel)
14