Opinion
NO. 5-17-0156
09-28-2017
In re S.C.C., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. J.B., Respondent-Appellant).
NOTICE
Decision filed 09/28/17. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 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 Williamson County.
No. 12-JA-62
Honorable Jeffrey A. Goffinet, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Welch and Chapman concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: Trial court properly found mother to be an unfit parent for failing to protect her minor daughter from conditions within her environment that were injurious to the child's welfare, and for failing to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child.
¶ 2 On March 29, 2017, the circuit court of Williamson County found respondent, J.B., mother, to be an unfit parent with respect to her minor daughter, S.C.C. The court subsequently entered an order terminating mother's parental rights to S.C.C. Mother appeals contending the court erred in finding her to be an unfit parent. We affirm.
¶ 3 S.C.C. was born on November 8, 2012, and was removed from mother's custody the day after she was born, directly from the hospital. Mother's first six children had already been removed by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in 2010, when it was alleged that mother's then-husband physically and sexually abused their eldest son and that she was complicit in the abuse. Her husband subsequently went to prison for sexual exploitation of a minor. Mother's seventh child, born later in 2010, was also removed from her custody. Mother ultimately agreed in 2012 to surrender custody of all seven children. During mother's involvement with DCFS between 2010 and 2012, mother consistently blamed her abused son for her loss of custody of the seven children, and accused him of lying to DCFS.
¶ 4 After her husband was incarcerated, mother became involved with John C., whom she met through her husband. Mother was living with John C., the biological father of S.C.C., at the time of S.C.C.'s birth. John C. is a registered sex offender. The month after S.C.C. was born, John C. was arrested and charged with another sexual offense. Mother did not believe the charges against John C. were truthful, and tried to keep the situation quiet so that it would not prevent S.C.C. from being returned home. A psychological evaluation report from October 2013 reported that mother continued to insist that John C., who had by then been sentenced to prison for sexual assault, was innocent. Mother claimed she would not be involved with John C. any longer, but there were concerns about her ability to follow through on that commitment. Mother told all of her service providers and counselors that she had not visited John C. since December of 2013, yet prison records reveal she visited him 53 times from July 2013 to May 2015. In
addition to lying to everyone, mother refused to appreciate that John C. was a danger to S.C.C.
¶ 5 S.C.C. was adjudicated neglected on January 31, 2013, on the grounds that she was in an environment injurious to her welfare. On March 31, 2016, a motion for termination of parental rights and for appointment of guardianship, with power to consent to adoption, was filed. John C. terminated his rights by consent on June 17, 2016, and on March 29, 2017, the court entered an order terminating the parental rights of mother, and appointed a guardian, with power to consent to S.C.C.'s adoption. Mother was found to be an unfit person pursuant to section 1(D)(g) of the Adoption Act (Act) (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(g) (West 2012)), failure to protect the child from conditions within her environment injurious to her welfare, and under section 1(D)(m)(i) of the Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2012)), failure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child during any nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect. Mother contends on appeal that the court erred in finding her unfit under either section of the Act.
¶ 6 In order to terminate parental rights of an individual, the State must first prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is unfit under one or more grounds listed in the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1 et seq. (West 2012)). In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 352-53, 818 N.E.2d 1214, 1220 (2004). If the court finds the parent to be unfit, it then determines whether the State has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is in the best interests of the minor that the parental rights be terminated. In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 366, 818 N.E.2d at 1228. We, as the appellate court, accord great deference to the
court's factual findings and credibility assessments and will reverse the court's decision only if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re M.J., 314 Ill. App. 3d 649, 655, 732 N.E.2d 790, 795 (2000). Here, the court had more than sufficient evidence to find mother unfit on both grounds. Given that the court's decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, we see no reason to reverse the court's decision finding mother to be an unfit parent with respect to her daughter S.C.C.
¶ 7 Under section 1(D)(g) of the Act, a finding of parental unfitness is warranted when the parent fails to protect the child from conditions in the child's environment that are injurious to the child's welfare. In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198, 212, 766 N.E.2d 1105, 1114 (2002). S.C.C. was born into an injurious environment. The evidence clearly showed that mother was repeatedly involved in unhealthy relationships and situations that compromised her children's safety and welfare. She lacked insight into her role as a cause of her problems. Throughout her history with DCFS, mother continually denied that her ex-husband physically and sexually abused her eldest son. Instead, she blamed that son for DCFS taking away all of her children. Once her ex-husband went to jail, mother chose to have a relationship with another sex offender whom she also believed to be innocent of his own past crime. Despite the fact that mother had already lost custody of seven children, she still had not made any progress towards understanding the safety issues that led to DCFS's involvement in her life. One of the goals in mother's DCFS service plans relating to S.C.C. included gaining insight into "previous victimization and maltreatment" of her children. Mother's impaired judgment and limited insight, however, were pervasive and persistent, and negatively impacted, significantly, on her
ability to provide consistent and reliable parenting. Even when mother had some measure of control over S.C.C.'s environment during visits, she chose to use these opportunities to expose S.C.C. to yet another individual whom she met on the internet. Mother's relationship with this individual, who had not yet passed a DCFS background check, was in defiance of repeated directives from child welfare workers. The evidence also revealed that, despite having completed several programs, parenting skills classes and counseling, mother was still lacking basic supervision and safety skills, and frequently required redirection and guidance by workers during visits with S.C.C. Given that the evidence supports the court's conclusion that mother failed to protect S.C.C. from conditions in her environment which were injurious to her welfare, we cannot say the court's finding of parental unfitness under section 1(D)(g) of the Act is against the manifest weight of the evidence in this instance.
¶ 8 Mother was also found unfit under section 1(D)(m) of the Act for failing to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child. Reasonable effort is a subjective standard, and refers to the amount of effort reasonable for the particular parent. In re R.L., 352 Ill. App. 3d 985, 998, 817 N.E.2d 954, 966 (2004). In this instance, the conditions that were the basis for S.C.C.'s removal were that mother was living with a registered sex offender, S.C.C. was at risk of harm, seven other children had already been removed from mother's care, and S.C.C. was at substantial risk of injury due to neglect. As previously stated, mother continually failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions of maintaining relationships with sex offenders, permitted sex offenders to have access to her children, and made excuses for
those sex offenders she chose. She continued to blame her sexually abused son for DCFS becoming involved in her life, denied that sex offenders who fathered seven of her eight children were guilty of the crimes of which they were convicted, and failed to take responsibility for her role in losing custody of her children. Given such evidence, when viewed objectively, it was clear that mother had not made reasonable efforts to correct the conditions relating to the presence of sex offenders in her life, which was one of the reasons for S.C.C.'s removal. See In re Nylani M., 2016 IL App (1st) 152262, ¶ 50, 51 N.E.3d 1067. Mother continued to put her needs ahead of her children's needs, and refused to comprehend the danger that such men could pose to her daughter. While mother may have completed counseling services, she was not forthcoming with any of her providers to address the very issues that led to the removal of her previous children, or S.C.C. Completion of the services provided to her is not evidence that mother expended an effort that was reasonable for her. See In re R.L., 352 Ill. App. 3d at 999, 817 N.E.2d at 966-67. Mother did not absorb what she was taught, and was unable to apply the teachings she had been given. Additionally, S.C.C. was at a substantial risk of injury due to neglect. Mother's struggle to provide basic care, even during supervised visits with S.C.C., remained constant throughout her involvement with DCFS, including after completing parenting skills sessions. A failure to learn and apply parenting skills can constitute a failure to make reasonable efforts to correct a condition that led to the removal of the child. See In re J.P., 261 Ill. App. 3d 165, 174-75, 633 N.E.2d 27, 34 (1994). Given the circumstances presented, the court's finding of mother's parental unfitness under section 1(D)(m)(i) of the Act, in that mother failed to make reasonable
efforts to correct the conditions that led to the removal of S.C.C., was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 9 After mother was found unfit, the State also established that it was in the best interests of S.C.C. to terminate mother's parental rights. S.C.C. was thriving and happy, and bonded with her foster family, which included two of her half-brothers. Her home life was stable and loving, whereas mother would need help meeting S.C.C.'s basic needs for many years to come. Accordingly, we find no error.
¶ 10 We note that pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 311(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010), our decision in this case was to be filed on or before September 21, 2017, absent good cause shown. Given the parties' briefing schedule, oral argument was not able to be scheduled until after the date the decision was due. Consequently, we find good cause exists for issuing our decision after September 21, 2017.
¶ 11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Williamson County finding mother to be an unfit parent and subsequently terminating her parental rights.
¶ 12 Affirmed.