Opinion
No. 2-18-1002
05-06-2019
In re M.K.M. and M.D.M., Jr., Minors (People of the State Of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Alexis B., Respondent-Appellant).
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(c) and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County.
No. 17-JA-60, 17-JA-61
Honorable Christopher Morozin, Judge, Presiding.
JUSTICE HUTCHINSON delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Schostok and Spence concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The order terminating respondent's parental rights is affirmed as the trial court's findings with respect to unfitness and the children's best interests were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 On October 16, 2018, the trial court found respondent, Alexis B., to be an unfit parent with respect to her sons, M.K.M. and M.D.M. The court concluded on November 6, 2018, that the termination of respondent's parental rights was in the minors' best interests. On appeal, respondent challenges the trial court's findings on both issues. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court's findings.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 On September 8, 2015, the trial court entered a temporary custody order granting the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) temporary custody of M.K.M. (born July 30, 2015) and M.D.M. (born September 26, 2013) with the right to place and consent to medical treatment. The probable cause finding was that there was a history of domestic violence between respondent, Alexis B., and the minors' father in their presence with respondent as victim.
¶ 5 On March 1, 2016, M.K.M. and M.D.M. were adjudicated neglected and subsequently made wards of the court on March 15, 2016. The factual basis for the trial court's neglect finding detailed respondent's use and abuse of illegal drugs. DCFS was appointed guardian of the minors with the right to place them with a responsible relative or in traditional foster care. Also on March 15, 2016, respondent was found unfit, unable or unwilling, for reasons other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train or discipline the minors.
¶ 6 On May 15, 2017, the State filed a petition to terminate respondent's parental rights as to both minors. The petition alleged that respondent is unfit for (1) failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsiblitly as to the minors' welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2016)); (2) failure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of the minors (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2016)); and (3) failure to make reasonable progress towards the return of the minors after the adjudication of neglect (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2016)).
¶ 7 On September 13, 2018, the trial court commenced a trial on the State's petition to terminate respondent's parental rights. The trial court admitted People's Exhibits 1 through 7 without objection. Relevant here, People's Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 were DCFS service plans from March 17, 2016, September 15, 2016, and March 5, 2017, respectively.
¶ 8 Lacey Norton was called as the State's first witness. Norton testified that she had been employed by One Hope United as a foster care manager. At the time of the trial, she was employed as a caseworker with Allendale Association for just over a week. She worked at One Hope United as M.D.M. and M.K.M.'s caseworker when the case opened in September 2015 and, with the exception of a period between April 2016 and February 2017, had been the minors' caseworker throughout the pendency of the proceedings. Norton created the initial service plan regarding respondent and the minors which covered the six months prior to March 17, 2016. Per that service plan, respondent was to acquire appropriate housing and income, participate in anger management services, domestic violence services, substance abuse services, and parenting services. Additionally, respondent was to undergo alcohol and drug testing. Norton rated respondent unsatisfactory regarding the services in the March 17, 2016, service plan. Respondent had been inconsistent with the requisite services and drug testing following referrals for all services from Norton.
¶ 9 Norton testified that respondent had not visited with the children since December 2016 because she failed to comply with the random drug screens; negative results on the drug screens were a prerequisite to any visitation. Respondent also had not sent any cards, letters, or gifts since the December 2016 visit. Furthermore, respondent had not successfully completed any of the other required services. Outside of seeing respondent in court, Norton's contact with respondent was nonexistent.
¶ 10 Norton also reviewed the case file for the period she was not the minors' caseworker. She testified that respondent inconsistently cooperated with services during this time period as well. Norton returned as the minors' caseworker in February 2017. She testified that her supervisor
had rated the March 5, 2017, service plan as unsatisfactory due to respondent's inconsistent or nonexistent compliance with the required services.
¶ 11 Norton testified that respondent and the minors' father had several incidents of domestic violence resulting in arrests since the opening of the case. She described respondent's level of cooperation with services during the case as poor. At no point during the case had respondent successfully completed substance abuse treatment, domestic violence treatment, parenting services, mental health treatment, or anger management treatment.
¶ 12 Following Norton's testimony, all parties rested and counsel presented arguments regarding unfitness. On October 16, 2018, the trial court found that the State had proven by clear and convincing evidence that respondent was unfit pursuant to 750 ILCS 50/1(d) subsections (b), (m)(i), and (m)(ii). Concerning respondent's failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concer, or responsibility as to the minors' welfare, the trial court found that:
"[T]he evidence has shown she has not visited with the minors since December of 2016 *** leading up to the filing of the petition for termination of parental rights. Again, that was in May of 2017. Since that time no contacts with the children, no letters, no cards, no emotional support, simply a failure to maintain a relationship and bond. *** [T]he court finds that the State has met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that she has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, and responsibility in the welfare of [the minor children]."
Concerning respondent's failure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the children from respondent, the trial court found that:
"[T]he minors were brought into care due to parents' illegal drug use and abuse which created an injurious environment for the minor children. There was also concern about
domestic violence between the parents. Since the minors were brought into care, [respondent has] not completed substance abuse treatment, [has] not completed domestic violence treatment, [has] missed numerous random drops, [has] tested positive for drugs. *** [T]he court finds that the State has met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that [respondent] *** has not made reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the two minor children."
Concerning respondent's failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of the children within the nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect, the trial court found that:
"The initial 9 month period was from March 2, 2016, to December 2, 2016. For this 9 month period, the court refers to my previous findings as to [respondent's] lack of progress in complying with the tasks and services, *** missing drug tests, testing positive for drugs, *** not progressing to unsupervised visits and *** inconsistencies and communication with the case worker. As to this subsection, the court finds the State met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that [respondent] *** has failed to make reasonable progress towards the return of the minors during the initial 9 month period."
¶ 13 The matter proceeded to the best interest phase on November 6, 2018. The trial court admitted People's Exhibits 8 and 9, the best interest reports prepared by Norton and CASA, without objection. Lacey Norton was then recalled by the State and testified that the children had been in two foster homes since the beginning of the case and had been in their current foster home since September 2015. Norton said that the current foster parents are willing to permanently adopt both children. Norton had visited the foster home over twenty times in the prior three years. The foster home is a four-bedroom, single-family suburban home where both
children have their own bedroom. The foster family provides plenty of food, clothing, toys and activities for the boys. The interaction between the children and the foster parents was described as very happy, emotional, and loving by Norton. The boys refer to their foster parents as Mommy and Daddy and are very bonded to them. Norton testified that it was her opinion that respondent's parental rights be terminated and the children by made available for adoption. The majority of the boys' childhood had been spent with their current foster parents and they had not seen respondent in over a year. Norton said that it would be detrimental to remove the children from their current foster home and that although they are African American and the foster parents are Caucasian, she did not have any concerns with that issue. The foster parents live in a diverse neighborhood and school district and they also attend foster parent support groups specializing in raising children of different backgrounds and ethnicities. Norton testified that she had not heard the children refer to respondent as Mom in two years and they could not identify respondent's first name when used in front of them.
¶ 14 The trial court found that it was in the best interests of the minor children to terminate respondent's parental rights. In so finding, the trial court stated that:
"The court has considered the statutory factors of best interest, all those delineated. *** The court [has] considered the safety and welfare of the minors and the knowledge of knowing that these foster parents have been the primary caretakers for these children for quite some time and that they've provided the safety, security, welfare, love, care, nurturing, that they've developed an identity with this family. They refer to these foster parents now as Mommy and Daddy. The Court is aware of the cultural differences between the foster family and these two minor children, and it's quite clear that the foster family is aware of that and have gone out of their way to preserve some of the cultural
ties and identity that these minors have in their choosing of a new community and school district. There certainly is a sense of attachment. There's certainly a sense of love and affection between the minors and the foster family, a familiarity. The court [has] considered the continuity that has been good with these kids, that they've been in the same placement for over three years, that this certainly is the least disruptive placement. *** Mom, I don't know why, really, you disappeared in their lives at a certain point and stopped visiting. And, you know, I've considered that in reaching my decision. And I've considered all of this and find it is in the best interest of these children that parental rights be terminated, and I'm going to enter an order of such."
Respondent timely appealed.
¶ 15 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 16 Respondent contends that the trial court erred in finding her to be unfit to parent M.K.M. and M.D.M. as the State failed to prove any of the three counts alleged in the motion to terminate parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, respondent contends that the trial court erred in finding that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it was in the minors' best interests that respondent's parental rights be terminated. We will begin our analysis with respondent's contentions as to the unfitness portion.
¶ 17 A parent's right to raise his or her biological child is a fundamental liberty interest, and the involuntary termination of such right is a drastic measure. In re B'Yata I., 2013 IL App 2d 130588 ¶ 28. Accordingly, the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 provides a two-stage process for involuntary termination of parental rights. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2018). Initially, the State must prove that the parent is unfit. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2), (4) (West 2018); 750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2016); In re B'Yata I., ¶ 28. If the court finds the parent unfit, the State must then
show that termination of parental rights would serve the child's best interests. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2016); In re B'Yata I., ¶ 28.
¶ 18 With respect to the first stage of the termination process, section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2018)) lists various grounds under which a parent may be found unfit. In re Antwan L., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1123. The State has the burden of proving a parent's unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2), (4) (West 2018); In re Antwan L., 368 Ill. App. 3d at 1123. A determination of parental unfitness involves factual findings and credibility assessments that the trial court is in the best position to make. In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 883, 889-90 (2004). The decision of a trial court with respect to a determination of parental unfitness will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill. 2d 340, 349 (2005). A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only where the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or the determination is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. In re Addison R., 2013 IL App (2d) 121318, ¶ 22.
¶ 19 Respondent first contends that the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that she failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility pursuant to 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b). Because the language used in this ground for unfitness is in the disjunctive, "any one of the three individual elements, i.e., interest or concern or responsibility, may be considered by itself as a basis for unfitness. In re B'Yata I., ¶ 31 (emphasis in orginal). When determining whether a parent has shown a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for a minor's welfare, it considers "the parent's efforts to visit and maintain contact with the child as well as other indicia, such as inquiries into the child's welfare. Id. Courts may also consider whether a parent completed necessary service plans in making such a
determination. Id. The interest, concern, or responsibility "must be objectively reasonable," and courts must focus on the parent's efforts, not on her success. Id.
¶ 20 The evidence presented shows that respondent's efforts to visit and maintain contact with the children or comply with the necessary service plans was so lacking to be almost nonexistent. Lacey Norton testified that respondent did not successfully complete any of the required services and was, at best, sporadic with participation in the services. Respondent's last negative drug screen was in December 2016. She tested positive for cannabis in February 2017. She did not bring toys, gifts, or send any cards to the children aside from her first visit at the opening of the case. Respondent was referred for substance abuse services in early 2017, but did not follow up with recommended services after participating in the intake. She began domestic violence classes in early 2017, but did not continue with them. She was referred to a counseling program that came to her residence but did not complete that program. She was referred for parenting classes in early 2017, but was inconsistent with her attendance and ultimately did not complete the program.
¶ 21 Norton testified that she personally made referrals for respondent to participate in domestic violence and substance abuse programs in October 2015. Respondent did not comply. There was evidence of ongoing domestic violence between respondent and the minors' father throughout the pendency of the case, resulting in arrests. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory on the March 17, 2016, DCFS service plan due to her compliance with only nine of twenty-four required drug screens. Respondent failed to provide verification of her income and housing situation. She was rated unsatisfactory on the September 15, 2016, DCFS service plan for failing to participate in the requisite substance abuse and anger management services. She failed to comply with weekly drug screens, failed to allow her caseworker into her home, failed to provide
verification of her housing lease. She was rated unsatisfactory on the March 6, 2017, DCFS service plan for her failure to participate in anger management, domestic violence treatment, substance abuse services, failure to provide verification of her housing lease, failure to allow her caseworker into her residence, and failure to complete parenting classes.
¶ 22 The trial court was presented with voluminous evidence of respondent's failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for the children's welfare. The evidence presented by the State regarding respondent's unfitness was clear, convincing, and unrebutted. The trial court's finding of respondent's unfitness pursuant to 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 23 Respondent additionally contends the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that she was unfit for failure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of the minors (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i)) and failure to make reasonable progress towards the return of the minors after the adjudication of neglect (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii)). The evidence presented at the unfitness hearing and articulated above was sufficient to support the trial court's finding of respondent's unfitness as to both allegations. Without belaboring the point, the State need only prove one statutory factor of unfitness to effectuate the termination of parental rights. In re A.S.B., 393 Ill. App. 3d 836, 843 (1997). A reviewing court need not consider other findings of unfitness when there is sufficient evidence to satisfy any one statutory ground. Id. Therefore, as the trial court's finding of respondent's unfitness pursuant to 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, we need not reach her contentions on the remaining allegations of unfitness.
¶ 24 We now move to respondent's final contention that the trial court erred in finding that it is in the children's best interest to terminate her parental rights. She argues that although the
minors appear to be in a safe and loving home and are doing well, the DCFS service plans discuss an older sibling of the children who will likely not have a chance to foster a relationship if respondent's parental rights are terminated.
¶ 25 Once the trial court finds a parent unfit, it must determine whether termination of parental rights is in the minor's best interests. In re B'Yata I., ¶ 41. Section 1-3(4.05) of the Adoption Act (705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2018)) sets forth various factors for the trial court to consider in assessing a child's best interests. In re B'Yata I., ¶ 41. The State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the best interests of the minor. Id. A trial court's best-interests finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. Id.
¶ 26 We conclude that respondent has not established that the trial court's findings on the children's best interest were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Lacey Norton's testimony at the best interest hearing went into great detail describing the children's life in their foster home. See supra ¶ 13. The CASA best interest report admitted in the trial court mirrors Norton's testimony. The children's foster parents were eager to adopt the boys, and the report recommended that they be permitted to do so. The evidence presented to the trial court shows that the children are fully integrated into their foster home and are thriving. Given all of the foregoing evidence, we cannot say that a conclusion opposite to the one reached by the trial court is clearly apparent.
¶ 27 Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court's finding that it was in M.K.M. and M.D.M.'s best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 28 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 29 For the reasons stated, we affirm the circuit court of Lake County.
¶ 30 Affirmed.