Opinion
4-21-0412 4-21-0499
12-10-2021
In re C.B., a Minor v. David M., Respondent-Appellant. The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, In re CM., a Minor The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. David M., Respondent-Appellant.
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon County No. 21JA45 No. 21JA46 Honorable Thomas E. Little, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Knecht and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
CAVANAGH JUSTICE.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court's dispositional order making the minors wards of the court was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 In March 2021, the State filed separate petitions for adjudication of neglect and abuse on behalf of each minor. The petitions alleged C.B. (born August 19, 2014) (Macon County case No. 21-JA-45) and CM. (born May 9, 2013) (Macon County case No. 21-JA-46) were neglected and abused pursuant to sections 2-3(1)(b), 2-3(2)(ii), and 2-3(2)(v) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b), (2)(ii), (2)(v) (West 2020)), in that their environment was injurious to their welfare and CM. was subjected to excessive corporal punishment resulting in severe bruising, putting C.B. at a substantial risk of physical injury, when they resided with their mother, Desiree B., who is not a party to this appeal. The minors were taken into protective custody on March 17, 2021, two days before the petitions were filed.
¶ 3 In April 2021, the trial court entered separate adjudicatory orders finding each minor neglected upon Desiree's and respondent's stipulation to neglect as alleged in the petition. Following a June 2021 dispositional hearing, the trial court (1) made each minor a ward of the court, (2) found respondent unfit and unable, and (3) placed custody and guardianship of the minors with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
¶ 4 In September 2021, respondent moved to consolidate the two cases into this one appeal, and we granted the motion. On appeal, respondent argues the trial court's dispositional order was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.
¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 6 On March 17, 2021, DCFS received a call from C.M.'s elementary school reporting suspected child abuse. According to school personnel, CM. had severe unexplained bruising and red marks about her body. The school nurse had treated CM. the day before for a rash, flea bites, and lice eggs. The nurse said CM. did not have the bruising on her body that day. After school, CM. refused to go home with two older boys, aged 14 and 17, with whom she resided. The school called the mother to pick up CM. and C.B. from school. CM. was upset when leaving with her mother. The next day, the school nurse re-examined CM. for the rash and found severe and significant bruising. The school called DCFS and the police.
¶ 7 The DCFS investigator learned from CM. that her mother told her not to tell anyone what had happened. Eventually, CM. said her mother was mad at her and spanked her. C.B. said he did not see his mother spank CM. but he heard his mother yelling at CM. and he heard CM. crying.
¶ 8 According to the shelter-care report, CM. had several bruises on her left shin, a fingertip-shaped purple bruise on her right thigh, a fingertip-shaped green bruise on her left thigh, three linear scratches on her left hip, a linear purple bruise with petechiae on her chest, a bite-like rash on her abdomen, and purple bruising all over her buttocks. DCFS took both minors into protective custody.
¶ 9 The mother admitted to police that she had spanked CM. on March 16, 2021, with an open hand on her bare buttocks. She admitted she used too much force but did so because she was angry and frustrated that she had to leave work because of CM.
¶ 10 On March 19, 2021, the State filed two petitions for adjudication, one on behalf of C.B. in case No. 21-JA-45, and one on behalf of CM. in case No. 21-JA-46. The State alleged C.B., a six-year-old male child, was (1) neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1) (b) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1) (b) (West 2020)), due to an environment that was injurious to his welfare in that "the parent" physically abused and inflicted excessive corporal punishment upon the minor's sibling (count I), and (2) abused pursuant to section 2-3(2) (ii) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(2) (ii) (West 2020)), when a parent or other member of the household created a substantial risk of physical injury to him in that "the parent" physically abused and inflicted excessive corporal punishment upon the minor's sibling (count II).
¶ 11 The State alleged CM., a seven-year-old female child, was (1) neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1) (b) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1) (b) (West 2020)), due to an environment that was injurious to her welfare in that "the parent" physically abused her and inflicted excessive corporal punishment upon her resulting in severe bruising on her body (count I), (2) abused pursuant to section 2-3(2)(ii) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(2)(ii) (West 2020)), when a parent or other member of the household created a substantial risk of physical injury to her in that "the parent" physically abused her and inflicted excessive corporal punishment upon her resulting in severe bruising on her body (count II), and (3) abused pursuant to section 2-3(2) (v) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(2) (v) (West 2020)), when a parent or other member of the household inflicted excessive corporal punishment upon her in that "the parent" physically abused her and inflicted excessive corporal punishment upon her resulting in severe bruising on her body (count III).
¶ 12 On April 21, 2021, the combined adjudicatory hearing commenced. Respondent was present and represented by counsel. Respondent and the mother stipulated to the allegations in count I in both cases. However, respondent's counsel advised the trial court that respondent "was not involved in the conduct in the situation." The State dismissed all other counts.
¶ 13 On April 30, 2021, DCFS filed a report recommending C.B. and CM. be made wards of the court. The report summarized respondent's significant prior criminal and DCFS history, both unfounded and indicated reports. There was a long history of domestic violence and child abuse with respondent as the perpetrator. One such indicated report dated December 10, 2016, began with a call advising that respondent, who was on the Illinois Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registry for domestic battery against a one-year-old child (later identified as C.B.), "mentioned" he was living with the mother, C.B., age two, and CM., age three.
¶ 14 The dispositional report indicated respondent did not participate in the initial child and family team meeting on April 19, 2021, "although he was invited and was reminded of the meeting." His services included domestic violence offender treatment, drug screens, mental health counseling, anger management services, a substance abuse assessment, securing suitable and stable housing, and a parenting course.
¶ 15 Respondent had not made progress on his services "[d] ue to the short amount of time that this case has been open[.]" The report confirmed respondent was on the above-named registry for abuse to C.B. Given the family's extensive prior history with DCFS, more time would be needed to ensure stability and safety for the minors. DCFS recommended the minors remain in substitute care.
¶ 16 On June 14, 2021, the trial court conducted a combined dispositional hearing. First to testify was Melissa Sanborn, a supervisor at DCFS. She testified respondent had begun parenting services, participated in a substance abuse assessment with Heritage Behavioral Health Center, and "ha[d] a home." DCFS had not yet evaluated the home to determine its suitability. Respondent's Heritage assessment indicated he required case management and outpatient services, but those services had not begun. Sanborn testified she had prepared an addendum to the dispositional report dated June 14, 2021, which updated the original with no major changes. On cross-examination, Sanborn acknowledged respondent was the nonoffending parent in this particular case.
¶ 17 Respondent testified he was engaged in anger management, "about to be started on substance abuse, parenting classes, and about to start [his] DUI classes." He had also "started the process" of beginning those services recommended by Heritage. He was participating in services to bring C.B. and CM. home.
¶ 18 Respondent's sister, Angela L., testified that, in her opinion, respondent was handling the case well; he was "really trying to be a parent." She believed respondent had "learned his lesson."
¶ 19 After taking into consideration the dispositional reports on file, the testimony given at the hearing, and the recommendations of the parties, the trial court found it was in the best interests of the minors and the public that the minors be made wards of the court. The court found it encouraging that respondent had begun services but there had not been "enough time yet to make certain that [the court could] feel comfortable that it [was] safe and in the best interest of the children to do something different other than make *** the children wards of the [c]ourt."
¶ 20 On June 14, 2021, the trial court entered two separate written dispositional orders (1) making the minors wards of the court, (2) finding respondent unfit, and (3) placing custody and guardianship of the minors with DCFS. The court specifically found respondent was unfit because he allowed the mother's physical abuse of the children, failed to protect the children, and had not fully engaged in recommended services.
¶ 21 This appeal followed.
¶ 22 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 23 On appeal, respondent asserts the trial court's dispositional findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree.
¶ 24 The Juvenile Court Act provides a two-step process the trial court must follow in deciding whether a minor child should become a ward of the court. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 17; see also 705 ILCS 405/2-18(1), 2-22(1) (West 2020). Step one of the process is the adjudicatory hearing where the trial court considers only whether the child is abused, neglected, or dependent. See id. § 2-18(1). Respondent does not challenge the court's adjudicatory finding of neglect.
¶ 25 Following an adjudication of neglect, the trial court must conduct a dispositional hearing to determine if the minor should be made a ward of the court. 705 ILCS 405/2-22 (West 2020). In considering the appropriateness of wardship, the court must decide if the parent is unfit, unable, or unwilling, for reasons other than financial reasons alone, to care for, protect, train, or discipline the child, and that the health, safety, and best interest of the child will be jeopardized if the child remains in the parent's custody. 705 ILCS 405/2-27(1) (West 2020). We will not overturn the court's dispositional order unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Jennifer W., 2014 IL App (1st) 140984, ¶ 44. "A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident." A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 17.
¶ 26 Respondent argues the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's decision to make the minors wards of the court and to award guardianship to DCFS. He claims the evidence showed he had begun to engage in services, had a home, and was the nonoffending parent.
¶ 27 However, the State presented evidence at the dispositional hearing that respondent had taken only the initial steps in some of his services. As such, it was too early to evaluate respondent's progress. Additionally, and more importantly, the State presented a dispositional report which detailed significant incidents of respondent's history of violence, including child abuse against C.B. Given this information, the trial court specifically stated that, at this early stage of the case, it was not comfortable with any other decision than making the minors wards of the court and awarding guardianship to DCFS. The safety and best interests of the minors were the court's primary consideration and, based on the totality of circumstances, we find the court's decision was amply supported by the evidence.
¶ 28 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 29 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 30 Affirmed.