In re Jordan S.

NOTICE
2022 IL App (5th) 220516-UNOTICE
Decision filed 12/15/22. The
This order was filed under
text of this decision may be NO. 5-22-0516 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
changed or corrected prior to
the filing of a Petition for not precedent except in the
Rehearing or the disposition of
IN THE limited circumstances allowed
the same. under Rule 23(e)(1).
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
In re JORDAN S., a Minor ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) Saline County.
)
Petitioner-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 20-JA-18
)
Tonya S., ) Honorable
) Todd D. Lambert,
Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding.
___________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE MOORE delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Boie and Justice Vaughan 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
Jordan S. and awarding custody of the minor to the Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS) with the authority to consent to his adoption. Respondent’s appointed counsel on appeal
concludes 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 has notified respondent of his motion and this court provided her with ample
1
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 Jordan S. was born July 1, 2019, with amphetamine and methamphetamine in his system.
On March 11, 2020, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship alleging that he was
neglected. The petition alleged that the family had been offered “intact family services” but that
respondent had not complied with required services or drug screens.
¶5 Two hearings were scheduled at which respondent did not appear. On June 9, 2020,
respondent appeared and was appointed counsel. Trina Mayfield, director of intact services at
DCFS, testified that the agency had had difficulty communicating with respondent. Mayfield
opined that it was in Jordan’s best interest to remove him from respondent’s care given his drug
exposure at birth and respondent’s noncooperation.
¶6 Respondent stated that she had “taken several different drug tests”—at least two—both of
which she passed. The court found probable cause to believe that the minor was neglected, an
immediate and urgent necessity existed to remove him from the home, reasonable efforts had not
eliminated that necessity, and it was in the minor’s best interest to be placed in DCFS custody.
¶7 A family service plan was filed in July 2020 requiring respondent to cooperate with all
services, complete a substance-abuse assessment, and submit to random drug screenings. At an
August 4 hearing, respondent stipulated to count I of the petition, which alleged that the minor’s
environment was injurious to his welfare in that, when he was born, his cord blood tested positive
for methamphetamine and amphetamine.
2
¶8 During the next two years, respondent’s progress was consistently rated unsatisfactory
during case reviews. She regularly attended monthly visitations and completed a parenting class
online but made only sporadic efforts at substance-abuse treatment. A March 4, 2021, family
service plan showed that respondent had not completed any assessments or engaged in any
services, and was generally uncooperative with the agency.
¶9 Later that month, the State moved to change the permanency goal to substitute care pending
termination of parental rights. In April 2021, the State filed a motion to that effect.
¶ 10 An October 2021 permanency report stated that respondent did complete a substance-abuse
assessment and agreed to a treatment plan. However, since that time she had attended only 3
counseling sessions while canceling 6 and missing 13 others. She had not attended a counseling
session since July and had not contacted her counselor in that time.
¶ 11 In March 2022, respondent tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC.
In May 2022, respondent completed a mental-health assessment but did not follow up with
treatment.
¶ 12 The termination hearing took place on June 7, 2022. Kelsie Arp had been respondent’s
caseworker and was currently a supervisor. Respondent was consistently rated “unsatisfactory”
for compliance with the service plans. Aubrey Berry took over as the caseworker in May 2021.
Since that time, respondent continued to receive unsatisfactory ratings. Respondent did not testify
or present any other evidence.
¶ 13 The court found that respondent was unfit and scheduled a best-interest hearing. The
permanency goal was changed to adoption.
¶ 14 At the best-interest hearing, Arp and Berry again testified. Arp said that the biological
parents had bonded with Jordan S. as well as could be expected during once-monthly visitations.
3
Jordan appeared attached to his foster parents, who were willing to adopt him. She believed that
the current foster placement provided Jordan S. with the necessary stability, asking the court to
find it in his best interest to terminate respondent’s parental rights.
¶ 15 Berry testified that neither respondent nor the biological father had completed all of their
required services nor had they made substantial progress in doing so. Berry also recommended
that the court find it in the minor’s best interest to terminate respondent’s parental rights.
Respondent did not testify or present any other evidence.
¶ 16 The court took the matter under advisement and later issued an order terminating
respondent’s parental rights. Respondent timely appealed.
¶ 17 ANALYSIS
¶ 18 Appointed counsel concludes that no good-faith argument exists that the circuit court erred
in terminating respondent’s parental rights. Before committing a minor to the custody of a third
party, such as 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 interest 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).
¶ 19 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). Here,
the witnesses, who were the caseworkers assigned to the case throughout its duration, both testified
that respondent was consistently rated unsatisfactory in achieving the service plan objectives. Both
4
witnesses opined that it was in the minor’s best interest to terminate respondent’s parental rights
and allow the minor to be adopted by the foster parents. There was no contrary evidence.
¶ 20 While respondent regularly attended visitations, these were only scheduled monthly. And
she did complete an online parenting class. However, she made little more than token efforts to
address her substance abuse and other mental health issues. Given that Jordan S. was born with
amphetamine and methamphetamine in his system, substance-abuse issues in particular were
obviously critical to returning the minor to respondent’s care. Yet, she consistently failed to make
satisfactory progress in this area, at one point canceling or missing 19 of 22 scheduled counseling
sessions.
¶ 21 In light of the uncontradicted evidence that respondent failed to make reasonable efforts
toward the return of the minor, the court’s finding of unfitness was not against the manifest weight
of the evidence. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the circuit court’s
judgment.
¶ 22 CONCLUSION
¶ 23 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.
¶ 24 Motion granted; judgment affirmed.
5