In re A.B.

NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme
2019 IL App (4th) 190505-UFILED
Court Rule 23 and may not be cited December 17, 2019
as precedent by any party except in Carla Bender
the limited circumstances allowed NO. 4-19-0505 4th District Appellate
under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
In re A.B., a Minor, ) Appeal from
) Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) Champaign County
Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 17JA71
v. )
Robert B., ) Honorable
Respondent-Appellant.) ) John R. Kennedy,
) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Turner and Harris concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court’s best-interest finding was
not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 In January 2019, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of
respondent, Robert B., as to his minor child, A.B. (born September 9, 2016). Following a fitness
hearing, the trial court found respondent unfit. In July 2019, the court found it was in A.B.’s best
interest to terminate respondent’s parental rights.
¶3 Respondent appeals, asserting the trial court’s best-interest finding was against
the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶4 I. BACKGROUND
¶5 A. Initial Proceedings
¶6 On December 13, 2017, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship,
alleging A.B. was neglected pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act)
(705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2016)), in that her environment was injurious to her welfare as
evidenced by respondent mother’s substance abuse and failure to correct conditions that led to a
prior adjudication of parental unfitness. On December 22, 2017, the State filed an amended
petition for adjudication of wardship alleging A.B. was neglected because her environment was
injurious to her welfare when she resided with respondent in that the environment exposed her to
domestic violence. A shelter care report filed that same day indicated that, in October 2017,
respondent mother’s three older children were taken into the care of the Department of Children
and Family Services (DCFS) and A.B. was placed in her paternal aunt’s home, where respondent
lived. Following a November 2017 hotline report of domestic violence, DCFS took A.B. into
protective care and filed the amended petition for adjudication of wardship.
¶7 In February 2018, the trial court entered an adjudicatory order finding A.B.
neglected. In March 2018, the court entered a dispositional order (1) finding respondent unfit
and unable to care for A.B., (2) making A.B. a ward of the court, and (3) placing custody and
guardianship with DCFS.
¶8 B. Termination Proceedings
¶9 In January 2019, the State filed a petition to terminate respondent’s parental
rights. The petition alleged respondent failed to (1) make reasonable progress toward the return
of A.B. during any nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect, specifically from
April 1, 2018, to January 1, 2019 (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2016)); and (2) maintain a
reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to A.B.’s welfare (750 ILCS
50/1(D)(b) (West 2016)).
-2-
¶ 10 1. Fitness Hearing
¶ 11 In May 2019, the matter proceeded to a fitness hearing. The trial court heard the
following evidence.
¶ 12 a. Rachel Kramer
¶ 13 Rachel Kramer, a program director with Lutheran Social Services of Illinois
(LSSI), testified she was the supervisor for the case. In April 2018, respondent had not been
assessed for services because he failed to complete an integrated assessment. In July and August
2018, Kramer served as the caseworker and had no contact with respondent. Respondent did not
provide proof of completion of any services, although he had supervised visitation at that time.
¶ 14 b. Jaimee Roy
¶ 15 Jaimee Roy testified she was the caseworker from April to May 2018. During her
time as caseworker, Roy had no contact with respondent. Roy did not attempt to contact
respondent because she had no contact information.
¶ 16 c. Meredith Brumfield
¶ 17 Meredith Brumfield testified she was the caseworker from August 2018 to May
2019. In August 2018, respondent spoke with Brumfield about completing an integrated
assessment. Brumfield gave respondent a new integrated assessment document, which
respondent completed and returned the following day. Brumfield followed up with respondent to
complete the integrated assessment and set up weekly visits with A.B. After respondent’s first
visit with A.B., Brumfield did a substance-abuse assessment and referred respondent to
Rosecrance to complete a formal assessment. According to Brumfield, she never received
documentation indicating respondent completed the formal assessment.
-3-
¶ 18 Brumfield testified she referred respondent to Family Advocacy of Champaign
County for parenting classes and Cognition Works for individual therapy. Respondent never
provided proof of completing the parenting classes or engaging in therapy. Although respondent
requested increased visits, Brumfield informed him he had to engage in services first. Brumfield
testified she never increased visits because she never received documentation showing
respondent engaged in services. Brumfield sent respondent numerous letters trying to get him to
engage in services.
¶ 19 Respondent denied being in a romantic relationship with anyone, but a woman
who identified herself as respondent’s girlfriend answered one of respondent’s contact telephone
numbers on several occasions. According to Brumfield, there were some issues with getting
confirmation of visits before they occurred, and respondent was often late. Respondent’s visits
became less consistent in October 2018 due to his incarceration. Based on respondent’s arrest,
Brumfield referred respondent to Cognition Works for domestic-violence treatment. The trial
court took judicial notice of respondent’s November 2018 conviction for a domestic battery
offense in Champaign County case No. 18-CM-1044.
¶ 20 d. Respondent
¶ 21 Respondent testified he was aware he needed to complete various services,
including parenting, domestic-violence, and anger-management classes. According to
respondent, he completed a parenting class in 2019 that his probation officer helped set up.
Respondent recently started domestic-violence and anger-management classes also set up by his
probation officer. Respondent complied with drug tests as part of his probation. Respondent
testified he was on probation for a felony domestic battery that occurred in December 2018.
-4-
¶ 22 Due to bus schedules, respondent was occasionally late to visits with A.B.
Respondent acknowledged missing some visits due to incarceration but testified he did not
otherwise miss visits. Respondent testified he worked full-time at McDonald’s from May 2017
to January 2018. Respondent lost his job in January 2018, but McDonald’s re-hired him
approximately one month before the hearing.
¶ 23 Respondent testified A.B. was taken from his home while he was at work and he
visited her regularly ever since. According to respondent, he missed only three visits during the
pendency of the case. Although respondent had communication problems with the earlier
caseworkers, he communicated well with Brumfield.
¶ 24 e. The Trial Court’s Ruling
¶ 25 The trial court noted respondent only engaged in services after his second arrest
for domestic battery at the end of 2018. Respondent did not begin those services during the
relevant nine-month period even though referrals had been made for parenting classes,
substance-abuse assessments, and individual counseling. The court noted that, had respondent
engaged in those services, he might have avoided the later domestic battery incidents. The court
found respondent failed to engage in any services until after his December 2018 arrest.
Accordingly, the court concluded the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that
respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of A.B. during the nine-month
period from April 2018 to January 2019. The court further concluded that although respondent
maintained interest and concern for A.B., he failed to maintain a reasonable degree of
responsibility for A.B.’s welfare, as evidenced by his failure to engage in services.
¶ 26 2. Best-Interest Hearing
-5-
¶ 27 LSSI submitted a best-interest report indicating respondent became involved with
LSSI in August 2018. Respondent “was arrested in November 2018 and in December 2018 and
spent time in jail for domestic violence against his girlfriend.” In September 2018, respondent
completed a substance abuse screen and was referred to Rosecrance for an intake appointment.
Respondent failed to engage in this service. LSSI further referred respondent for individual
therapy and parenting classes. Respondent also failed to engage in these services. Visitation
with A.B. was inconsistent due to respondent’s incarceration; however, the visits went well when
respondent attended.
¶ 28 According to the report, the foster parents met A.B.’s physical safety and welfare
needs, including food, shelter, clothing, and health care. A.B. was well integrated into her foster
family and the foster parents were willing to encourage her interests by signing her up for classes
and sports. The foster parents ensured A.B. had frequent visits with her older siblings. A.B. had
a strong bond with her foster parents, showed them affection, and sought them out to meet her
needs. A.B. remained in the foster home since her placement in December 2017 and she had a
strong sense of belonging with the foster family. The foster parents were “ready and willing to
provide permanency for [A.B.]”
¶ 29 The Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) also filed a best-interest report,
which documented the stability of A.B.’s foster placement. The CASA report noted the foster
family ensured A.B. had contact with her older siblings. A.B. shared a strong bond with her
foster family and the report stated, “There is a tremendous risk if [A.B.] were to be uprooted
once again from her home and family she has lived with for the last year and a half. [A.B.] feels
safe, secure, and loved in her current placement.” Both best-interest reports recommended
terminating respondent’s parental rights.
-6-
¶ 30 At the best-interest hearing, the trial court considered the best-interest reports and
the statutory factors. The court agreed with the conclusions drawn in the best-interest reports
and stated it was abundantly clear that A.B.’s best interest favored termination of respondent’s
parental rights. The court noted respondent had a positive relationship with A.B. and stated, “It
is an occasional relationship because of the visitation situation, not a consistent relationship, not
one that indicates the ability to provide long-term care for this child.” The court found by a
preponderance of the evidence it was in A.B.’s best interest to terminate respondent’s parental
rights.
¶ 31 This appeal followed.
¶ 32 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 33 On appeal, respondent argues the trial court’s best-interest finding was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. Respondent does not challenge the trial court’s finding of
unfitness. Accordingly, we address only the best-interest finding.
¶ 34 Once the trial court determines a parent to be unfit, the next stage is to determine
whether it is in the best interest of the minor to terminate parental rights. In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill.
App. 3d 239, 261, 810 N.E.2d 108, 126 (2004). The State must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that termination is in the best interest of the minor. Id. The trial court’s finding will
not be overturned unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. at 261-62.
¶ 35 The focus of the best-interest hearing is to determine the best interest of the child,
not the parent. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2016). The trial court must consider the
following factors, in the context of the child’s age and developmental needs, in determining
whether to terminate parental rights:
-7-
“(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 ***[;]
***
(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
(j) the preferences of the persons available to care for the
child.” Id.
¶ 36 The trial court in considering the relevant best interest factors concluded A.B. had
the opportunity for long-term care, love, and a family relationship with her foster family. The
reports showed A.B. was doing well in her foster placement and had a strong bond with her
foster parents. A.B.’s needs were met, and she sought out her foster parents for attention and
affection. Moreover, the foster parents were committed to ensuring A.B. had an ongoing
-8-
relationship with her older siblings. The CASA report indicated A.B. had a strong sense of
belonging with her foster family. Additionally, the foster family was ready and willing to
provide permanency for A.B. through adoption. The record shows A.B. was in a stable, loving
home with foster parents willing to provide her permanency.
¶ 37 Conversely, respondent cannot provide stability and permanence for A.B. in the
near future. Although respondent had a relationship with A.B. and attended visits, he failed to
show he could provide, in the near future, permanency. Respondent failed to make reasonable
progress toward A.B.’s return in the time the case was pending. Although respondent began
some services as part of his probation for a felony domestic-violence conviction, there was no
indication that respondent would maintain stability. He failed to engage in services throughout
the majority of this case and provided the caseworker with no documentation of engaging in any
services. Moreover, respondent’s visitation with A.B. was not consistent. He was routinely late
for visits and missed several visits due to his incarceration for domestic-violence incidents. The
caseworker was never able to increase respondent’s visitation or allow for unsupervised
visitation because respondent failed to engage in services. Nothing in the record shows
respondent might be capable in the near future of offering A.B. a safe, stable, and permanent
home. The court determined A.B.’s need for permanence, stability, and security outweighed any
harm from terminating respondent’s parental rights. Accordingly, the court determined it was in
A.B.’s best interest to terminate respondent’s parental rights.
¶ 38 Given the extent to which A.B. was thriving in her foster placement and the
possibility of permanence and stability in the near future through adoption, we conclude the trial
court’s finding it was in A.B.’s best interest to terminate respondent’s parental rights was not
against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.
-9-
¶ 39 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 40 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 41 Affirmed.
- 10 -