Opinion
4-23-1287 4-23-1288 4-23-1289
05-20-2024
In re Ky. R., Ki. R., and K.D., Minors v. Robert R., Respondent-Appellant The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee,
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 Tazewell County Nos. 22JA161 22JA162 22JA163 Honorable David A. Brown, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Harris and Knecht concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
ZENOFF JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: The trial court's finding of unfitness was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 On August 4, 2022, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship alleging the minors, Ky. R. (born July 2011), Ki. R. (born July 2015), and K.D. (born June 2009), were neglected. Following a hearing on the petitions on February 8, 2023, the trial court adjudicated the minors neglected due to an environment injurious to their welfare. The court placed custody of the minors with respondent, Robert R., on a temporary basis, until further order of the court.
¶ 3 On September 13, 2023, the State filed amended shelter care petitions, again alleging the minors were neglected due to an environment injurious to their welfare. At the adjudicatory hearing on October 18, 2023, the trial court accepted respondent's stipulation to the allegations of the petitions and found the minors neglected due to an environment injurious to their welfare. At the dispositional hearing held that same day, the court found respondent unfit to have custody of the minors, made the minors wards of the court, and granted guardianship to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), with the right to place. In this consolidated appeal, respondent argues the court's finding of unfitness following the dispositional hearing was against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 5 On August 4, 2022, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship, seeking to adjudicate the minors neglected under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2022)). The petitions alleged respondent is the father of Ky. R. and Ki. R. The father of K.D. was listed as "unknown" in the petitions. The parental rights of the minors' mother and K.D.'s father are not at issue in this appeal.
¶ 6 The petitions alleged the minors were neglected due to an injurious environment because K.D. had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and his mother, Krystal B., had not managed it properly, resulting in three hospitalizations since August 4, 2020. The petitions alleged Krystal B. had not attended training to help manage K.D.'s condition, and a physician had expressed concern about her delay in getting K.D. to the hospital. The family was offered intact services but refused to participate. The petitions requested the minors be found neglected and adjudged wards of the court.
¶ 7 Following a hearing on the petitions for adjudication of wardship on February 8, 2023, the trial court found the minors neglected due to an environment injurious to their welfare (id. § 2-3(1)(b)). The court placed custody of all three minors with respondent on a temporary basis, until further order of the court.
¶ 8 The State filed amended shelter care petitions on September 13, 2023, again alleging the minors were neglected due to an environment injurious to their welfare. The State alleged a social worker at the Pediatric Diabetic Resource Center had expressed concern about determining the party responsible for managing K.D.'s care following placement of the minors with respondent. Respondent did not participate in training and discontinued use of K.D.'s insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor against medical advice. Respondent and Krystal B. had "argued intensely" during a meeting addressing the best method for managing K.D.'s condition. They were advised the best way to manage K.D.'s diabetes was to use the insulin pump and the continuous glucose monitoring system, but shortly after the meeting, respondent lost the pump, valued at $7000. Respondent also left K.D. at home without proper supervision after being informed he should not do so given the severity of K.D.'s condition. The State further alleged respondent had committed domestic violence by headbutting his girlfriend on April 12, 2023, while all three minors were present in the home, had at least two prior convictions for domestic violence offenses, and missed required drug screenings on April 3, 2023, and April 11, 2023. The State requested the minors be adjudged neglected and made wards of the court.
¶ 9 At the adjudicatory hearing on October 18, 2023, the State detailed the witnesses who would testify to establish each of the factual allegations of the amended shelter care petitions. After respondent stated he had no objection, the trial court accepted his stipulation to the allegations of the petitions. The State rested, and respondent did not present any evidence. The court found the amended petitions proven by a preponderance of the evidence and adjudicated the minors neglected due to an environment injurious to their welfare.
¶ 10 The matter proceeded immediately to a dispositional hearing. The trial court stated it had received and reviewed the dispositional hearing report and an addendum to the report. In response to the State's questioning, Children's Home caseworker Emmett Lange confirmed the addendum indicated that respondent had completed a mental health assessment and additional therapy was not recommended. However, Lange did not provide any information to the evaluator prior to respondent's appointment because she did not know respondent had scheduled the mental health assessment. When asked whether she had concerns about respondent parenting his children, Lange stated she was concerned about the domestic violence in the home and respondent's mental health given that the assessment was completed without all relevant information provided. Lange also noted respondent had failed to engage in the recommended services. Lange asserted she would not be comfortable with respondent parenting the children given his lack of engagement in services.
¶ 11 Respondent testified he had a three-bedroom home with room for all three minors. He owned a construction company and worked as a subcontractor. Respondent testified he was willing to complete an integrated assessment, had missed only two visits with the children and the absences occurred because he could not get away from work, and played games with all the children during visits. He also brought food and read information about managing K.D.'s diabetes during the visits. Respondent testified he was willing to complete any counseling or treatment recommended in an assessment. He had completed a parenting course and training to manage K.D.'s diabetes, and he could ensure the minors attended their appointments.
¶ 12 The guardian ad litem (GAL) informed the trial court that the minors all expressed a preference for living with Krystal B., if possible, but they were also comfortable where they were currently living, in their foster parents' home. They also stated visits with their parents were going well. The GAL recommended the court find respondent unfit, asserting he fights with Krystal B. and the caseworker, and "DCFS is called all the time." Respondent continued to place his own needs above those of the children, and he had not demonstrated he could act in their best interest.
¶ 13 Following the parties' arguments, the trial court found respondent unfit to have custody of the minors, noting they were placed with him after the initial adjudication of neglect, and it "ended up being a disaster." Respondent resisted cooperating with services and failed to demonstrate he could safely parent the children. The court asserted respondent appeared to be more concerned about his own interests than the best interest of the children. The court found respondent "failed to meet minimum parenting standards" and was "unable to keep these children safe." The court ordered respondent to complete a new mental health assessment and comply with the recommendations, admonished him to comply with the terms of the service plans, and set the matter for a permanency review hearing.
¶ 14 Respondent filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court's dispositional order in each case. This court allowed respondent's motion to consolidate the appeals.
¶ 15 This appeal followed.
¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 17 On appeal, respondent contends the trial court's finding of unfitness was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Respondent maintains almost all the neglect allegations in the amended shelter care petitions related to his care of K.D. and his medical condition, but those allegations do not affect respondent's ability to care for the other two minors, who do not suffer from a similar health condition. Respondent argues the evidence did not establish he was unfit to care for his two legal children, Ky. R. and Ki. R., and the court erred in finding him unfit to parent them based on his mismanagement of K.D.'s medical condition.
¶ 18 The Juvenile Court Act provides a two-step process for determining whether a minor may be removed from a parent's custody and made a ward of the court. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 18. The first step is the adjudicatory hearing, where the trial court considers whether the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent. Id. ¶ 19. If the trial court determines the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent, the case proceeds to the second step, the dispositional hearing. Id. ¶ 21 (citing 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2) (West 2010)).
¶ 19 At the dispositional hearing, the trial court determines whether it is in the best interest of the minor and the public to make the minor a ward of the court. 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2022). If the minor is made a ward of the court, the court determines the proper disposition to best serve the health, safety, and interests of the minor and the public. Id. The court may remove a minor from a parent's custody if it determines (1) the parent is unfit or unable, for a reason other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minor and (2) the minor's health, safety, and best interest will be jeopardized by remaining in the parent's custody. Id. § 2-27(1). The rules of evidence do not apply at the dispositional hearing, and the court may consider all evidence helpful in determining a proper disposition. In re M.D., 2022 IL App (4th) 210288, ¶ 63. At this stage, where the finding of unfitness does not result in termination of parental rights, the State must prove unfitness by a preponderance of the evidence. In re April C., 326 Ill.App.3d 245, 257 (2001).
¶ 20 A trial court's dispositional order will be reversed on appeal only if its findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence or the court abused its discretion by selecting an inappropriate disposition. In re Al. S., 2017 IL App (4th) 160737, ¶ 41. A trial court's finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. Id. This standard is deferential to the trial court because it is in a better position to observe the witnesses, assess their credibility, and weigh the evidence. Id.
¶ 21 In this case, the trial court found respondent unfit based, in part, on the amended shelter care petition, which respondent stipulated to at the adjudicatory hearing, and the testimony presented at the dispositional hearing. The evidence indicates respondent consistently failed to manage K.D.'s critical medical needs. Respondent refused to comply with the medical recommendations for managing K.D.'s diabetes, including the use of an insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitor. Respondent's failure to manage K.D.'s diabetes was evidence of unfitness as to K.D., and it also reflected on respondent's fitness and ability to care for and protect the other children in his custody. See In re D.F., 201 Ill.2d 476, 500 (2002) (holding evidence supporting a finding of unfitness as to one of a parent's children may be relevant to unfitness as to another child).
¶ 22 Further, contrary to respondent's argument, the evidence involving his mismanagement of K.D.'s diabetes was not the only basis for finding him unfit. The State also presented evidence of a domestic violence incident on April 12, 2023, where respondent headbutted his girlfriend while all three minors were present in the home. Respondent has a history of domestic violence, with at least two prior convictions. Additionally, respondent missed required drug screenings on April 3, 2013, and April 11, 2023, and the Children's Home caseworker informed the trial court that respondent had failed to engage in the recommended services. The caseworker testified she would not be comfortable with respondent parenting the children given his lack of engagement in the recommended services.
¶ 23 In finding respondent unfit, the trial court asserted he had been uncooperative with service providers and placed his own interests above the best interest of the children. The court specifically stated, "the frustrating thing from my vantage point is it's almost like both of you are doubling down on your positions and you're not going to budge because you're right and everybody else is wrong." The court found respondent "failed to meet minimum parenting standards" and was "unable to keep these children safe." Following the dispositional hearing, the court ordered respondent to complete additional services and specifically instructed him to fully cooperate with DCFS or its designees. Respondent must address the ongoing service requirements to enable him to meet minimum parenting standards.
¶ 24 In sum, the trial court heard evidence that respondent failed to care for K.D.'s critical medical needs, has a history of domestic violence, including the recent incident while the minors were present in the home, missed two required drug screenings, and failed or refused to engage in the recommended services. Given the evidence, the court's finding that respondent was unfit, for some reason other than financial circumstances alone, to care for and protect all three minors was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The opposite conclusion is not clearly evident. Accordingly, we affirm the court's dispositional order.
¶ 25 Finally, we note this disposition is filed outside the 150-day time frame for accelerated cases set forth in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a)(5) (eff. July 1, 2018), which states, "Except for good cause shown, the appellate court shall issue its decision within 150 days after the filing of the notice of appeal." Respondent filed his notice of appeal on November 9, 2023, making the deadline for the disposition April 8, 2024. However, respondent requested an extension of time to file his brief. Additionally, upon reviewing this case, this court discovered that the record did not contain a certified report of proceedings and that respondent's brief improperly cited a transcript not included in the record. Neither party moved to supplement the record to include the transcript in accordance with the procedure set forth in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 329 (eff. July 1, 2017). Therefore, on March 28, 2024, this court entered an order on its own motion striking the parties' briefs, requiring respondent to ensure the circuit court clerk transmitted a certified supplemental record to this court containing the transcript of the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings by April 2, 2024, and setting a new briefing schedule, with briefs to include appropriate references to the supplemental record. The briefing schedule was completed on April 29, 2024. Given these delays, we conclude good cause exists for the delayed filing of this disposition, despite this court making every effort to abide by the deadline.
¶ 26 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 27 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 28 Affirmed.