Opinion
5-21-0227
06-07-2022
In re AVA W., a Minor v. Aaron W., 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 Effingham County. No. 18-JA-30 Honorable Christopher W. Matoush, Judge, presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE BOIE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Welch and Vaughan concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
BOIE, PRESIDING JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: We affirm the judgment of the circuit court terminating the respondent's parental rights where the circuit court's finding that the respondent was an unfit person was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and the other issue raised on appeal was found to be forfeited.
¶ 2 The respondent, Aaron W., is the father of Ava W., born July 2018. On May 10, 2021, the circuit court of Effingham County found Aaron to be an unfit person within the meaning of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2020)), for failing to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minor child's welfare (id. § 1(D)(b)) and for failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor child (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)) during the nine-month period of April 24, 2020, to January 24, 2021, following the adjudication of neglect. On June 24, 2021, the circuit court found that termination of Aaron's parental rights was in the best interests of the minor child and terminated Aaron's parental rights regarding Ava. Aaron now appeals the circuit court's judgment terminating his parental rights, arguing that the circuit court's findings that Aaron was an unfit person, and that termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of Ava, were against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 Aaron is married to Ava's mother, Kelsey, and they reside together in a marital household. At the time of Ava's birth, hospital personnel alerted the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to the possibility that Aaron and Kelsey did not have the capacity to care for her. Kelsey had been diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome from her childhood and had a diminished mental capacity along with an extensive mental health history. Hospital personnel noticed that Kelsey was having difficulty comprehending instructions on how to feed and care for Ava along with instructions on how to order meals for herself. Kelsey had also made comments that, although not deliberately, she could see herself hurting Ava.
Kelsey was also a respondent in the circuit court's proceedings but is not a party to this appeal. As such, background information regarding Kelsey is limited to that information necessary to address Aaron's issues on appeal.
Some reports indicate that Kelsey has the mental capacity of an 8-year-old individual and other reports indicate that Kelsey has a mental capacity of a 12-year-old individual. The record does not contain medical records regarding Kelsey's mental capacity; however, Aaron does not dispute that Kelsey has a diminished mental capacity.
¶ 5 DCFS found that the allegation of a substantial risk of physical injury and/or an environment injurious to the health and welfare of Ava by neglect was indicated and devised an informal safety plan in an attempt to keep Ava in the home. Because Kelsey continued to state that she did not want Ava and that, when Ava cried, she wanted to stop the crying by any means necessary, the informal safety plan provided that Aaron would be the protective factor limiting the amount of contact Kelsey had with Ava.
¶ 6 On August 22, 2018, Aaron secured an emergency order of protection against Kelsey on Ava's behalf and Kelsey was required to leave the home. Aaron, however, did not follow through on securing a two-year order of protection and allowed Kelsey to return to the home. Shortly after Kelsey returned home, Kelsey indicated to three professional individuals working with the family that she had no desire to care for Ava and that, although she had no plan to harm Ava, she could see that happening. Kelsey also indicated to these individuals that she was very jealous of the attention that Aaron was giving to Ava. As such, DCFS found sufficient evidence to believe that Ava was at risk of harm, and Ava was taken into protective custody on September 20, 2018.
¶ 7 On September 24, 2018, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2018)). The juvenile petition alleged that Ava was neglected as defined in section 2-3(1) (b) of the Act (id. § 2-3(1) (b)), because Ava's environment was injurious to her welfare due to Aaron allowing Ava to be around and cared for by Kelsey. A shelter care hearing took place on the same day, and the circuit court found that reasonable efforts had been made to keep Ava in the home, but that such efforts had not eliminated the necessity for the removal of Ava from the home. The circuit court entered a temporary custody order pursuant to section 2-10 of the Act (id. § 2-10), placing Ava in the temporary custody of the Guardianship Administrator for DCFS. The circuit court also appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) and a court appointed special advocate (CASA) for Ava.
¶ 8 On March 13, 2019, DCFS filed a family service plan with the circuit court. The service plan indicated that Kelsey was having difficulty comprehending the threats associated with having a child and being mentally delayed, but that Aaron acknowledged the threats and was willing to engage in services to mitigate any threats. The service plan stated that on August 30, 2018, Aaron was recommended to attend parenting classes but that he had not attended. As such, Aaron was rated as unsatisfactory progress and was referred to Project 12-Ways for in-home parenting education. The service plan further stated that Aaron needed to complete an initial assessment to determine whether any additional services were needed, but that Aaron had canceled every appointment that had been made to complete the initial assessment. The DCFS service plan of March 13, 2019, also indicated that Aaron needed to complete a psychological evaluation, participate in mental health services, and submit to random urine tests.
¶ 9 On October 4, 2019, Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois (LCFS) filed a report with the circuit court. The LCFS report indicated that Aaron seemed to be cognitively delayed and had visual disabilities and poor health. The LCFS report stated that Aaron needed to work on getting his medical needs met and recommended to the circuit court that custody and guardianship of Ava remain with DCFS.
¶ 10 LCFS filed a second report with the circuit court on November 4, 2019. The second LCFS report stated that Aaron was not currently participating in any counseling and that Aaron needed to take more initiative and interact with Ava during his visitation. The second report also indicated that Kelsey could not get out of bed before noon due to her headaches, so visitations needed to be held later in the day. According to the second LCFS report, at one visit, a case aide was holding Ava and neither parent made an effort to come over and take Ava. On another visit on October 30, 2019, a case aide, along with an individual from Project 12-Ways, arrived to find that Aaron and Kelsey had their dog in the house. Because the dog was not permitted to be in the home or around Ava, the case aide asked that the dog be taken outside. Aaron and Kelsey refused to remove the dog from inside the home even though the case aide had explained that they could not visit with Ava with the dog inside the home. Because Aaron and Kelsey refused to take the dog outside, the case aide left with Ava and no visit was conducted. After the October 30, 2019, visit, the second LCFS report indicated that the individual from Project 12-Ways left, and that Project 12-Ways closed its case regarding Aaron and Kelsey. Finally, the second LCFS report stated that there was "too much anger when [Aaron or Kelsey] are told they are doing something wrong with Ava. They might have been shown and told many times but they don't practice any of the parenting techniques." As such, the second LCFS report recommended to the circuit court that the custody and guardianship of Ava remain with DCFS.
¶ 11 The circuit court conducted a hearing on the State's petition for adjudication of wardship on March 13, 2019, May 8, 2019, June 5, 2019, and October 18, 2019. Over the course of the four-day hearing, the circuit court heard testimony from 10 witnesses, including Kelsey, and filed its finding on adjudication on December 2, 2019. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing, the circuit court determined that Ava's safety and/or well-being was endangered while in the unsupervised presence and care of her mother. As such, the circuit court found that the State had meet its burden sustaining the allegations directed toward Kelsey and that Ava was neglected as defined by section 2-3(1) (b) of the Act (id. § 2-3(1) (b)). The circuit court noted that it attached no moral fault to Kelsey, nor did it make any finding that her actions or inactions were necessarily intentional. Rather, the circuit court stated that it believed that Kelsey was simply not capable of fulfilling her duties as a parent to Ava. The circuit court further found that Aaron's actions did not rise to the level of neglect as defined in section 2-3(1)(b) of the Act (id.), simply by permitting his wife to return to their home and reside with Ava. Accordingly, the circuit court granted that portion of the State's petition for adjudication of wardship directed toward Kelsey and dismissed that portion of the State's petition regarding Aaron.
¶ 12 On December 6, 2019, the circuit court entered an adjudicatory order finding Ava neglected as defined in section 2-3(1)(b) of the Act (id.), in that Ava was in an environment that was injurious to her welfare, and dependent as defined in section 2-4(1) (b) of the Act (id. § 2-4(1)(b)), in that Ava was without proper care because of the mental or physical disability of a parent, guardian, or legal custodian. The adjudicatory order further stated that the neglect was inflicted by "mother, only" because of the physical or mental disability of the parent as defined by section 2-4(1) (b) of the Act (id.). As such, the circuit court's adjudicatory order directed that Ava remain in the custody and guardianship of DCFS.
¶ 13 On December 17, 2019, CASA filed a status report with the circuit court. The CASA status report indicated that Aaron was residing with his wife and had not progressed on his service plan. The report indicated that on September 17, 2019, a CASA volunteer attended the second case review at the DCFS office and that Ava's parents had not participated in their case review in any capacity and had made no attempts to attend either in person or by telephone. The CASA report also stated that neither parent had engaged in counseling and that both parents had a significant history of mental illness. The CASA report further stated that Aaron had significant vision problems and health issues and that Aaron had displayed anger issues toward the professionals involved in the case, as well as hateful and inappropriate written communication with the foster parent. Finally, the CASA report stated that Aaron needed to complete a psychological evaluation and engage in intensive counseling. As such, the CASA status report recommended that custody and guardianship of Ava remain with DCFS.
¶ 14 LCFS filed a third report with the circuit court on December 19, 2019. According to the third LCFS report, there was "too much anger and hostility" when Aaron was told he was doing something wrong with Ava. The third LCFS report also indicated that Aaron had called the police with no justification on the foster parent several times and once on the LCFS case supervisor. The third LCFS report further indicated that again on November 6, 2019, when Ava was being brought for a visit, the dog was in the house, and when asked that the dog be put outside, Aaron and Kelsey refused. The case aide explained to Aaron and Kelsey that they were cancelling their own visit because of the dog, and the case aide left. The third LCFS report also indicated that the reason Project 12-Ways had closed its case with Ava's parents was due to the increased aggression and hostility from both parents. Finally, the third LCFS report stated that when the last visit was attempted, there was a "No Trespassing" sign on the back door and a patch that had two crossing guns. As such, the LCFS third report recommended that custody and guardianship of Ava remain with DCFS.
¶ 15 On January 16, 2020, LCFS filed a portion of Aaron's medical records and noted that Aaron refused to sign a new consent for LCFS to get updated records. Attached to LCFS's January 16, 2020, filing was a list of visitations where problems had occurred, the latest service plan, a photograph of the decals that had been placed on the back door, a note from Heartland Human Services about counseling, and the final report from Project 12-Ways. The lists of visitations indicated that several visitations had been canceled by Ava's parents, including one visit that had been confirmed with Aaron the day before. When the caseworker arrived the following day, she had to knock several times before Aaron came to the door and stated that they were not prepared for a visit. At another visit, the caseworker arrived approximately 45 minutes early with Ava and was refused entry into the home until the scheduled time of the visitation.
¶ 16 The final report from Project 12-Ways was dated November 1, 2019, and indicated that on multiple occasions, Project 12-Ways staff observed anger outbursts from Aaron toward the staff. According to the final Project 12-Ways report, at the last attempted session when Aaron was asked to remove the dog, he became very upset, yelling and using profanity toward the staff members while pointing his finger in their faces. The Project 12-Ways final report indicated that Aaron and Kelsey attended 83% of the 25 scheduled sessions and were not compliant during those sessions. As such, the final report indicated that Aaron and Kelsey were discharged unsuccessfully from Project 12-Ways' services due to a lack of cooperation.
¶ 17 The circuit court conducted a disposition hearing on January 30 and March 6, 2020. The circuit court heard the testimony of five witnesses over the course of the two-day hearing. The circuit court issued its findings on disposition on April 17, 2020. The circuit court's findings on disposition stated that it had determined as follows:
"Following the adjudication hearing, the Court found the minor to be neglected as a result of the actions and inaction of the Respondent mother. Nevertheless, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that, at this time, neither of the Respondent parents is able, for reasons other than financial alone, to care for, protect or train the minor child and further finds that the health, safety, and best interest of the minor child will be jeopardized if the minor remains in the custody of her parents. ACCORDINGLY, guardianship of the minor child shall be placed with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services."
¶ 18 The circuit court issued a dispositional order on April 24, 2020, finding that both Aaron and Kelsey were unfit and unable to care for Ava and that reasonable efforts and appropriate services aimed at family reunification had been made to keep Ava in the home, but they had not eliminated the necessity for the removal of Ava from the home. As such, the circuit court found that Ava was neglected, made her a ward of the court, and placed her in the custody and guardianship of DCFS. The circuit court ordered visitation between Ava and her parents to be supervised by DCFS. The circuit court's dispositional order further found that the service plan was appropriate and admonished Aaron that he must cooperate with DCFS and comply with the terms of his service plan or risk the termination of his parental rights.
¶ 19 On May 6, 2020, LCFS filed its fourth report with the circuit court. The fourth LCFS report indicated that Aaron was not participating in mental health counseling but was seeing a psychiatrist whose name Aaron would not provide. The fourth LCFS report also indicated that Aaron needed a psychological evaluation, but that Heartland Human Services was closed at that time due to COVID. The fourth LCFS report further stated that Aaron needed to complete a domestic violence assessment and that Aaron stated he was being harassed when asked about his medical issues. According to the report, Aaron was not visiting with Ava because that he did not want to bother with the video visits and that Aaron had stated that the visits should be made up after the COVID quarantine was over. Finally, the fourth LCFS report stated that Aaron was not completing his services and recommended to the circuit court that Ava remain in the custody and guardianship of DCFS. LCFS filed a fifth report with the circuit court on June 10, 2020, which repeated the information contained in the fourth LCFS report filed on May 6, 2020.
¶ 20 On June 12, 2020, in open court, the circuit court advised Aaron of his right to appeal the dispositional order and, again, admonished him to cooperate fully with DCFS or risk the termination of his parental rights. The circuit court then held a permanency hearing, set a permanency goal of return home within 12 months, and issued a written permanency order pursuant to section 2-28 of the Act (id. § 2-28). The written permanency order found that the services contained in the service plan were appropriate and reasonable calculated and that Aaron had not made reasonable and substantial progress toward returning Ava home. As such, the permanency order directed that Ava remain in the custody and guardianship of DCFS.
At the March 6, 2020, dispositional hearing, the circuit court stated that it was taking the matter under advisement and that further court dates may be necessitated by the circuit court's findings on disposition. The circuit court's docket entry of April 17, 2020, stated that the findings on disposition were entered and set the matter for disposition hearing on May 8, 2020. The circuit court entered its dispositional order on April 24, 2020. The circuit court's docket entry of May 8, 2020, stated that the circuit court, sua sponte, continued the May 8, 2020, hearing to June 12, 2020, for the purpose of admonishing the parents of their appeal rights and the need for them to cooperate with DCFS or its designee and that, in the meantime, due to COVID-19 and the administrative order of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, the time for appeal was tolled. Aaron filed a notice of appeal on July 13, 2020, appealing the circuit court's dispositional order of April 24, 2020, and this court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution on December 9, 2020. In re Ava W., No. 5-20-0210 (2020) (unpublished order).
¶ 21 On October 15, 2020, LCFS filed a sixth report with the circuit court. The sixth LCFS report stated that Aaron had not engaged in any counseling services, had not completed a domestic violence assessment, and had refused to provide the name of the psychiatrist he was seeing. The sixth LCFS report also stated that Aaron had not visited with Ava during the last four months of in-person visits since he refused to wear a mask and comply with COVID precautions to keep Ava safe. The sixth LCFS report also indicated that Aaron had not made any significant progress toward completing the services needed to return Ava home.
¶ 22 The next day, October 16, 2020, CASA filed a permanency report with the circuit court. The CASA report stated that Ava had been in foster care for 25 months and that Aaron was not progressing on his service plan. The CASA report also indicated that Aaron did not participate in visitations with Ava. The CASA report stated that on September 24, 2020, DCFS conducted a virtual administrative case review that Aaron did not attend, although attending via phone or virtually was an option. The CASA report further stated that it was determined at the administrative case review that Aaron was not participating in his service plan and, as such, was rated unsuccessful in his service plan.
¶ 23 The CASA permanency report also stated that on July 2, 2020, Ava's parents called the police when an LCFS caseworker came to the home to conduct a safety check since an in-home visit had been scheduled with Ava. The CASA permanency report stated that an argument ensued when Aaron refused to allow the caseworker access to the basement and the visit was canceled. The CASA report further indicated that the cancellation of this visit was significant since Ava's parents had not seen Ava since March 2020, and that Ava's second birthday was within a few days of the visit. The CASA report also stated that if Ava's parents had allowed the caseworker to properly assess the home, the visit would have taken place. The CASA report went on to note that the police were called to Ava's parents' home in March 2020, due to a carbon monoxide alert, and that the responding officer noted several marijuana plants being grown in the basement. Finally, the CASA permanency report of October 16, 2020, stated that Ava's parents had consistently received unsatisfactory service plan reviews, that neither parent had engaged in counseling, and that there was a significant history of mental illness for both parents. As such, the CASA permanency report recommended to the circuit court that Ava remain in the custody and guardianship of DCFS.
¶ 24 LCFS filed its seventh report with the circuit court on November 16, 2020. The seventh LCFS report indicated once again that Aaron was not in counseling, had not completed a domestic violence assessment, and had not visited with Ava during the last five months of in-person visits because he refused to wear a mask. As such, the seventh LCFS report stated that Ava was entitled to permanency due to being in care for at least 15 out of the last 22 months and that neither parent had made any significant progress at completing the services needed to have Ava return home. The seventh LCFS report recommended that Ava remain in the custody and guardianship of DCFS.
¶ 25 On February 5, 2021, CASA filed a permanency report with the circuit court. The permanency report again indicated that Aaron was not progressing on his service plan, had consistently received unsatisfactory service plan reviews, and had no contact with Ava since March 12, 2020. The permanency report further noted that Aaron had displayed anger issues toward the professionals involved in the case. As such, the CASA permanency report recommended that the circuit court change the permanency goal to substitute care pending termination of parental rights.
¶ 26 The State filed a motion for termination of parental rights and for appointment of guardian with power to consent to adoption (motion to terminate) on February 9, 2021. The State's motion to terminate stated that Ava was adjudged neglected on December 6, 2019, and disposition was entered by the circuit court on April 24, 2020. The State's motion to terminate alleged that Aaron was an unfit person as defined in section 1 (D) (b) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1 (D) (b) (West 2020)) for failing to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minor child during the period of April 24, 2020, to January 24, 2021. The State's motion to terminate also alleged that Aaron was an unfit person as defined in sections 1(D) (m)(i) and 1 (D)(m) (ii) of the Adoption Act (id. §§ 1(D) (m) (i), (ii)), for failing to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child and for failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor child during the period of April 24, 2020, to January 24, 2021. As such, the State's motion to terminate stated that it was in the best interest and welfare of the minor child that all parental rights and residual parental rights flowing to and through Aaron with respect to Ava be permanently terminated and that Ava be placed in the guardianship of DCFS, with DCFS being vested with the power to consent to the adoption of Ava.
¶ 27 On March 9, 2021, LCFS filed an eighth report with the circuit court. The eighth LCFS report indicated that Ava was now two years old and had bonded with her entire foster family. The eighth LCFS report indicated that Aaron was discharged from Project 12-Ways due to his failure to apply skills learned to successfully care for Ava, and that Aaron was not in counseling services, had not completed a domestic violence assessment, and refused to provide the name of the psychiatrist he was seeing. Additionally, the eighth LCFS report indicated that Aaron had not visited with Ava during the last nine months of in-person visits and that the caseworker's recent attempts to contact Aaron by phone and through an in-person visit were unsuccessful. As such, the eighth LCFS report stated that a copy of Aaron's service plan for an upcoming case review had to be mailed. Finally, the eighth LCFS report indicated that Aaron had not made any significant progress in completing his assigned services and recommended that custody and guardianship of Ava remain with DCFS.
¶ 28 The circuit court held a permanency hearing and entered a permanency order on March 17, 2021, pursuant to section 2-28 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-28 (West 2020)). At the hearing, Aaron did not object to the appropriateness of the services listed in his service plan. The circuit court's permanency order again found that the services contained in the service plan were appropriate and reasonably calculated and that Aaron had not made reasonable and substantial progress toward returning Ava home. The circuit court then changed the permanency goal to substitute care pending determination of termination of parental rights based on the circuit court's findings that Aaron had not made reasonable and substantial progress toward returning Ava home.
¶ 29 On April 30, 2021, LCFS filed a ninth report with the circuit court that reflected the same information contained in the eighth LCFS report. On May 6, 2021, LCFS filed a tenth report that reflected the same information contained in the eighth LCFS report, but also indicated that Aaron failed to appear for his case review on March 16, 2021, and that Aaron would not answer the door or telephone when his caseworker attempted to contact him.
¶ 30 On May 10, 2021, the circuit court conducted a fitness hearing. At the hearing, the State called Michele Heinz as its only witness. Michele testified that she was employed with LCFS as a caseworker and had been assigned to this matter since August 2019. Michele stated that when she was first assigned to this case, she had the opportunity to review the file and to meet with Aaron and Kelsey. Michele testified that Aaron's service plan required that he attend parenting classes and be able to demonstrate his parenting skills. Michele further stated that Aaron's service plan required Aaron to complete psychological, mental health, domestic violence, and psychiatric evaluations, and to follow any recommendations based on those evaluations. Finally, Michele testified that Aaron's service plan required Aaron to take all medication prescribed to him. Michele stated that she had met with Aaron, that Aaron had a copy of his service plan, and that she had gone through the service plan with Aaron.
¶ 31 Michele further testified that Aaron's parenting classes were conducted by Project 12-Ways and that Project 12-Ways came into the home and conducted a hands-on class, participating one-on-one with Aaron. Michele stated that Aaron had failed his parenting class because he was not able to demonstrate the basics in taking care of a child, such as feeding. As such, Michele testified that it was her opinion that Aaron was unable to care for Ava. Michele stated that she had encountered a situation where a parent was not able to care for, protect, or train a child, but that this case was "quite an exception" because Ava's parents had not made any effort or shown any ability to take care of Ava.
¶ 32 Michele stated that she was aware that Aaron was seeing a psychiatrist; however, Aaron refused to provide her the name of his psychiatrist or any information regarding the medications he was taking. Michele testified that during the period of April 24, 2020, to January 24, 2021, Aaron failed to complete his parenting classes and failed to demonstrate his parenting skills. Michele further testified that Aaron failed to complete his psychological, mental health, and domestic violence evaluations.
¶ 33 Michele went on to testify that Ava's parents had two hours of visitation a week and that the visitation could not occur in the morning since Kelsey had a note from her doctor indicating that she was not to have visits before 1 p.m. due to her headaches. Michele stated that she had never seen a copy of the doctor's note. Michele further testified that the visitations were scheduled with both parents in their home and were supervised by a case aide. During the period of April 24, 2020, and January 24, 2021, Aaron had no visits with Ava. Michele stated that when COVID occurred, in-person visitation was not permitted, but that she informed Aaron that he could have visitation via video. According to Michele's testimony, Aaron refused, stating that he did not want to bother downloading that software or application on his phone. Michele testified that Aaron never expressed any other reason for not wanting the video visitations, that he never expressed a need for assistance to download the application, and that Aaron has an associate's degree related to computers. Michele testified that in-person visitations resumed in July of 2020, and although in-person visits were offered, Aaron again refused the visitation because he would be required to wear a mask during the visitation. Michele testified that the last visitation Aaron had with Ava was in March 2020.
¶ 34 Michele also testified that Aaron had a very dominant personality, but that she never witnessed any kind of domestic violence between Ava's parents. Michele further testified that she did not witness any interest in the welfare of Ava from either parent. Finally, Michele testified that her communications with Ava's parents were minimal because when she attempted to speak with them, they would either hang up the phone or get mad. Michele stated that if she went to the home, they would not answer the door. Because of this, Michele testified that she did not have a lot of opportunity to work with Ava's parents because they made it extremely difficult. In dealing with Ava's parents, Michele stated that it was her opinion that Aaron and Kelsey were unable to care for Ava.
¶ 35 Finally, Michele testified that she was aware that both parents had disabilities and that accommodations, such as providing visitation in the home since they did not drive, had been made, and that the service plans are tailored to each individual family. Michele stated that Aaron had diabetes and glaucoma but could not state whether he had any psychiatric or psychological conditions because he failed to complete those assessments.
¶ 36 The State did not call any further witnesses. Kelsey was then called by her counsel to testify on her own behalf. Kelsey stated that she was Ava's mother and that Ava's birth had been difficult. Kelsey testified that she had lost a lot of blood during childbirth and was ill afterwards, so it was the hospital's decision that Ava be kept in the nursey and not in Kelsey's room. Kelsey stated that she would have kept Ava in her room and that she never stated to anyone that she did not want Ava. Kelsey further testified that she had never threatened Ava.
¶ 37 Regarding her service plan, Kelsey stated that no one from DCFS or LCFS ever informed her where to go for mental health and psychiatric evaluations. Kelsey testified that she attempted to see the same psychiatrist that Aaron was seeing, but there was a long waiting list, and she was still waiting for them to call. Kelsey testified that she had shaken baby syndrome that caused daily headaches and made it difficult to think. Finally, Kelsey testified that she had graduated from Effingham High School and that she could read and write.
¶ 38 Aaron did not testify, and no further witnesses were called at the hearing. After closing arguments, the circuit court stated as follows:
"In summary, this Court does believe, based on the totality of the evidence this Court has, and I understand the nature with regard to the parents and taking that into consideration, but there were cognitive decisions that the parents made that have put us in a situation where it has been over one year since they have talked to Ava. Since they have seen Ava, and those were their decisions.
Coupled with any inability, or inability to properly get the treatment that's necessary, the domestic violence counseling, et cetera, and this Court is going to find their unwillingness to cooperate with LCFS, that the State has met its burden with regards to the motion with regards to the unfitness."
¶ 39 As such, the circuit court found that Aaron was an unfit person as defined in section 1 (D) (b) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1 (D) (b) (West 2020)) for failing to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility toward Ava, and further found that Aaron was an unfit person as defined in section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)), for failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of Ava to the home. The circuit court, however, found that the State failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that Aaron was an unfit person as defined in section 1(D) (m) (i) of the Adoption Act (id. § 1 (D) (m)(i)), for failing to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of Ava from the home.
¶ 40 On June 16, 2021, LCFS filed a best interest report with the circuit court. The best interest report indicated that Ava was now three years old and had a strong, loving bond with her entire foster family. The report indicated that Ava had not seen her parents since March 2020, and that removal of Ava from her foster parent would be traumatic. The best interest report further indicated that Aaron had not completed his services and that Ava deserved permanency since she had been in care since September 2018. As such, it was LCFS's recommendation to the circuit court that parental rights be terminated.
¶ 41 CASA also filed a best interest report with the circuit court on June 22, 2021. CASA's best interest report stated that Aaron was not progressing in his service plan and that he would not participate in case reviews or in visitations with Ava. The report again noted the significant history of mental illness for both parents and the displayed anger issues toward the professionals involved in the case. Finally, the best interest report indicated that Ava was thriving in her foster home and recommended to the circuit court that parental rights be terminated.
¶ 42 On June 24, 2021, the circuit court conducted a best interest hearing. Michele Heinz was called as witness for the State. Michele testified that she was employed by LCFS and was the caseworker assigned to this matter since August 2019. Consistent with her testimony at the fitness hearing, Michele stated that Aaron had failed to complete parenting classes, a mental health assessment, and a psychological assessment. Michele further testified that Ava had been in the care of her foster parent since September 2018, and that Ava was now almost three years old.
¶ 43 Michele testified that Ava's foster parent was a friend of Aaron's mother, and that Ava's foster parent was not related to Ava by blood. Michele stated that Ava's foster parent had a 16-year-old daughter that also resided in the home and that Ava was in a safe environment, properly fed, and properly clothed, and that all of Ava's medical needs were being met. Michele stated that she had observed Ava with her foster parent and that Ava had a strong bond with her entire foster family. Michele stated that she believed that Ava was accepted and loved by her foster family and that they provided Ava with a sense of security. Michele testified that Ava's foster parent wanted to adopt Ava and that Michele believed that the foster parent would provide a stable and safe environment for Ava. Michele further testified that Ava's foster home was the only home that Ava had known, and that Ava was a part of a big, wonderful family.
¶ 44 Michele went on to testify that Ava's parents had not visited with Ava since March 2020. Michele stated that Aaron declined video visitations with Ava because he did not want to download the video application to his phone, and that when in-person visitations resumed, Aaron refused to wear a mask in order to visit with Ava. Michele stated that Aaron had made no effort to visit with Ava and that it was her opinion that he did not have much concern about Ava. Michele stated that Ava did not appear to be bonded with her parents and that it would be very traumatic for Ava to have further contact with her parents since she does not know them.
¶ 45 Next, the State called Julie Everett to testify. Julie stated that she was Ava's CASA advocate and had been Ava's CASA advocate since the beginning, for about 33 months. Julie testified that she was an "extra set of eyes and ears for the Court" and that, at one point, she had attended Ava's visits with her parents. Julie stated that she had never noted Ava as being upset during the visits and, at times, Ava seemed comfortable and would play with her parents. Julie also testified, however, that there was a great deal of conflict in the beginning when the foster parent supervised the visits. For example, Julie testified that, at one visit, Kelsey was very intent on speaking directly to Ava's foster parent, stating that Kelsey did not want Ava with her, and that Kelsey did not pick her to be Ava's foster parent. Julie stated that Kelsey then looked at Aaron and asked why he had called the foster parent. In that visit, Julie testified that she had clocked 45 minutes of the hour visit where Kelsey had not touched Ava because she was intent on questioning Ava's foster parent. Julie further testified that the confrontation between Ava's parents and the foster family was repeatedly stated as being based on the foster parent not being "family." Julie then testified that when Kelsey's grandmother took over supervision of the visits, the visits were calmer.
¶ 46 Julie went on to testify that Ava's visits with her parents were fairly "hit and miss" before March 2019, due to Ava's parents' conflicts with the case aides. In March 2019, Julie stated that due to COVID, telephone or virtual visits were the only option for visitation. Julie testified that when it came to Ava's parents' capability to participate by telephone, they had, in the past, participated in meeting by telephone.
¶ 47 Julie further testified that she had concerns with Ava's parents because part of their service plan was to participate in counseling, and they had failed to do so. Julie stated that there were several times when the police were called just to end the visits. Additionally, Julie stated that none of the domestic calls were due to abuse or were substance related but seemed as if Ava's parents had a hard time as a couple managing conflict between the two of them and that involving law enforcement had been used to mitigate those issues.
¶ 48 Julie acknowledged that Ava's parents, along with herself, were frustrated with the constant changing of personnel from LCFS during the duration of this case but noted that there were conflicts between Ava's parents and the various caseworkers before each caseworker left. Julie also acknowledged that there were times when the LCFS caseworker would show up late to the point where Julie would have to leave. Julie stated that she believed that there had been three caseworkers assigned to this matter before Michele and at least two case aides had also been previously assigned. Julie stated that Ava's parents maintained a pretty civil rapport with her and that she did not have a high degree of conflict with either of Ava's parents. Julie further testified that she had no communications with Ava's parents since March 2020 since it was her responsibility to monitor Ava. Since March 2020, Julie testified that, at one point, she called Aaron's phone in an attempt to verify a visit, but he did not answer so she called Kelsey. Julie stated that Kelsey informed her that the visit was going to occur, and that Aaron then called CASA furious that Julie had the conversation with Kelsey. Julie stated that since that attempt, she did not believe that Ava's parents had the same phone numbers, and she no longer had their contact information.
¶ 49 Julie went on to testify that she had observed Ava with her foster parent and that Ava was comfortable, giggled a lot, and was happy. Julie stated that she had also observed Ava with her foster parent's teenage daughter and that Ava appeared really happy. According to Julie's testimony, Ava's foster home was "a very natural blended family." Julie stated that Ava's foster parent had been going above and beyond for three years to provide the best for Ava and that she believed that it was in Ava's best interest that parental rights be terminated and the goal to be adoption.
¶ 50 The State next called Dalynn Morgason as its final witness at the best interest hearing. Dalynn testified that she is Ava's foster parent and a friend of Aaron's mother. Dalynn stated that she had been friends with Aaron's mother for several years and, as such, was familiar Ava's family. Dalynn stated that a DCFS investigator came to her home while she was caring for Ava and informed her that Ava was going to be placed in foster care. Dalynn stated that the night before the DCFS investigator came to her home, Aaron had called her and asked her to come and take Ava and that it was the second time she had taken care of Ava at Aaron's request.
¶ 51 Dalynn testified that Ava had been living with her since Ava was 2½ months old and that Ava was a wonderful little girl. Dalynn stated that Ava was bashful, but not as bad as she used to be, and that Ava loved to color, sing, and dance. Dalynn testified that Ava lives with her and her 16-year-old daughter and that Dalynn had three adult children that no longer resided with her. Dalynn testified that her relationship with Ava was a mother-daughter bond and that Ava's relationship with her 16-year-old daughter was a sibling relationship. Dalynn also testified that Ava had been around her extended family such as cousins, aunts, uncles, and Dalynn's father, and that Ava was a part of that family. Dalynn stated that the last time Ava saw her parents was in March 2020, and that visits prior to that were "hit and miss." Dalynn stated that Ava would be very clingy after the visits.
¶ 52 Dalynn acknowledged that, about 15 years ago, she was suicidal on one occasion after her divorce, but testified that she currently had no mental health issues and was not on any medications. Dalynn stated that she worked as a warehouse operator and that Ava had a baby-sitter that she liked and trusted. Dalynn stated that she has had no difficulty caring for Ava, that it was her hope to adopt Ava, and that she believed that it was in Ava's best interest for her to adopt Ava. The State had no further witnesses.
¶ 53 Counsel for Kelsey called Sharon Goldman to testify. Sharon testified that she was Kelsey's grandmother and Ava's great-grandmother. Sharon testified that she became involved in this matter when she received a telephone message that Ava had been taken into foster case and that a place was needed to place Ava. Sharon stated that by the time she received the message, Ava had already been placed with Dalynn. Sharon stated that she had contacted the caseworker in the hope that Ava could be placed with her, but according to Sharon's testimony, DCFS stated that they were not going to remove Ava from Dalynn's home. Sharon testified that she had previously been a foster parent and that DCFS would not provide a reason why Ava could not be placed with her. Sharon testified that it was her belief that it was in Ava's best interest to be placed with a blood relative because Ava had a lot of family that could love her, give her attention, and do things with her. Finally, Sharon testified that she had not had any communication with Ava since COVID started. Sharon was the only witness called by Kelsey's counsel, and Aaron's counsel presented no witnesses.
¶ 54 At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court stated that:
"The Court has considered the factors of best interest as outlined in 705 ILCS 405/1-3. I would note that based on the evidence today as far as findings of fact, there has
been nothing to indicate, no contrary evidence to indicate that the child has not been thriving in the current foster care, and the care of Miss Morgason.
* * *
I would note, and I do understand the arguments from the attorneys, the evidence with regards to some of the additional issues in this cause with regards to the capabilities of both mother and father with regards to mental capabilities and other issues. I also clearly understand that Covid has transpired, a lot of this started with regards to when Covid hit in March of 2020. The parents have made no effort to see the child in well over a year.
* * *
So the bottom line is where we are at here is I do believe that the child has clearly bonded with the foster parent. Is in a position that's in the best interest of Ava at this time. There is no indication to me that any time soon the parents would come to a point where they are even able to care for Ava.
* * *
I do find, based on all of the evidence, based on the factors, that it's in the best interest of Ava that the parental rights of both Kelsey [W.] and Aaron [W.] be terminated, and that the goal of adoption be the proper goal at this point."
¶ 55 The same day, June 24, 2021, the circuit court entered an order finding that it was in the best interest of Ava that all residual, natural, and parental rights of Aaron be terminated and entered a judgment terminating Aaron's parental rights regarding Ava. Aaron now appeals the circuit court's judgment terminating his parental rights, arguing that the circuit court's findings that he was an unfit person, and that the termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of Ava, were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 56 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 57 Before proceeding to an analysis of the issues raised on appeal, we note that pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a) (5) (eff. July 1, 2018), except for good cause shown, this court is to issue a decision within 150 days after the filing of the notice of appeal. Accordingly, the decision in this case was due to be filed on or before December 23, 2021. However, the following event resulted in the placing of this appeal on the oral argument docket for June 9, 2022: appellant brief, due to be filed on or before September 16, 2021, was not filed until April 11, 2022, after show cause orders had been issued by this court and leave to file late briefing was granted. For this reason, we find good cause to issue this order past the deadline.
¶ 58 "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) 130558, ¶ 28. The Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2020)), along with the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/0.01 et seq. (West 2020)), governs the proceedings for the termination of parental rights. In re D.F., 201 Ill.2d 476, 494 (2002). The Act provides a two-stage process for the involuntary termination of parental rights. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2020). The State must first establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is an unfit person under one or more of the grounds of unfitness enumerated in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1 (D) (West 2020)). 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2), (4) (West 2020); In re D.T., 212 Ill.2d 347, 352-53 (2004). Even if the State alleges more than one count of unfitness, only one count needs to be proven to find a parent unfit. In re J.A., 316 Ill.App.3d 553, 564 (2000). 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 2020); In re B'Yata I, 2013 IL App (2d) 130558, ¶ 28. In this matter, Aaron argues on appeal that the circuit court erred in its findings at both stages of the termination proceedings. As such, we begin our analysis with the issue of whether the circuit court erred in its determination that Aaron was an unfit person.
¶ 59 A determination of parental unfitness involves factual findings and credibility assessments that the circuit court is in the best position to make, and a finding of unfitness will not be reversed unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill.App.3d 883, 889-90 (2004). "A factual finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the determination is arbitrary, unreasonable, and not based on the evidence." In re G. W., 357 Ill.App.3d 1058, 1059 (2005).
¶ 60 In this matter, the circuit court determined that the State had proven, by clear and convincing evidence, two grounds of unfitness against Aaron. Specifically, the circuit court found that Aaron was an unfit person as defined in section 1(D) (b) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020)) for failing to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to Ava's welfare in the nine-month period from April 24, 2020, to January 24, 2021, following the adjudication of neglect on December 6, 2019. The circuit court further found that Aaron was an unfit person as defined in section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)), failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of Ava to the home during the same timeframe. We will begin our analysis with the circuit court's finding that Aaron was an unfit person for failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of Ava to the home as it is dispositive to Aaron's claim that the circuit court erred in finding him an unfit person.
¶ 61 Aaron states that his service plan required him to complete parenting classes, psychological, psychiatric, mental health, and domestic violence assessments, maintain a stable home, and take his prescribed medication. Aaron argues, however, that he was a nonoffending parent who committed no act of neglect or abuse and, as such, questions why he should have been required to undergo the evaluations. Aaron further argues that if the services were required, his caseworker should have scheduled each necessary appointment for the completion of the services and then notified him by letter of the time and place of the appointments, along with an offer to provided transportation if needed. We find Aaron's argument to be without merit.
¶ 62 Reasonable progress is an objective standard that is not concerned with a parent's individual efforts and abilities. In re D.D., 309 Ill.App.3d 581, 589 (2000). We review reasonable progress using an objective standard relating to making progress toward the goal of returning the child home. In re R.L., 352 Ill.App.3d 985, 998 (2004). Reasonable progress requires measurable or demonstrable movement toward the goal of reunification, and reasonable progress can be found if the trial court can conclude that it can return the child to the parent in the near future. In re J.H., 2014 IL App 3d 140185, ¶ 22. "The standard by which progress is to be measured is parental compliance with the court's directives, the DCFS service plan, or both." In re J.A., 316 Ill.App.3d at 564.
¶ 63 Although Aaron now questions whether his assigned services were necessary, Aaron fails to cite to any portion of the record to demonstrate that he had, at any point, objected to his assigned services or raised the issue of whether his assigned services were necessary with DCFS, LCFS, or the circuit court. At the fitness hearing, Aaron did not present any evidence to demonstrate that he had completed even one of his assigned services. Even if, as Aaron argues, the evaluations were unnecessary, there can be no argument that the demonstration of parenting skills is crucial for the return of a minor child to a home. Michele testified that Aaron's required parenting classes were provided through in-home services and that Aaron was unable to successfully complete his parenting classes due to his failure to demonstrate the parenting skills as instructed. More importantly, Aaron failed to present any evidence at the fitness hearing to demonstrate that he would be able to complete his service plan's requirements, including the evaluations and the demonstration of parenting skills, at any point in the near future.
¶ 64 Therefore, we find that the circuit court's finding that Aaron was an unfit person as defined in section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (m) (ii) (West 2020)), based on Aaron's failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of Ava during the nine-month period of April 24, 2020, through January 24, 2021, such period following the adjudication of neglect, was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. As noted above, only one count of unfitness must be proven for the circuit court to find that Aaron was an unfit person. In re J.A., 316 Ill.App.3d at 564. Because we have determined that the circuit court did not err in finding that Aaron was an unfit person for failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of Ava, we do not need to address Aaron's argument that the circuit court erred in finding that respondent was unfit for failing to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to Ava's welfare. We also note that Aaron argues that the circuit court erred in finding Aaron an unfit person as defined in section 1(D) (m)(i) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1 (D)(m) (i) (West 2020)), for failing to correct the conditions that brought Ava into care. However, as noted in the background section, the circuit court held that the State had failed to meet its burden regarding that allegation of the petition to terminate, and any argument related thereto is moot.
¶ 65 The next issue that Aaron raises on appeal is whether the circuit court's finding that termination of Aaron's parental rights was in the best interest of Ava was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Aaron's argument on this issue is a single paragraph stating that, since the circuit court's finding that Aaron was an unfit person was in error, the matter should not have proceeded to the best interest stage. Aaron states that since the circuit court's finding on fitness was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the circuit court's finding on best interest was also against the manifest weight of the evidence. Aaron's argument contains no other reasoning, nor does it contain any citations to pertinent authority or references to the record.
¶ 66 Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020), the appellant brief "shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages relied on." "A court of review is entitled to have the issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and cohesive arguments presented." In re M.M., 2016 IL 119932, ¶ 30. An appellant may not foist onto the reviewing court the burden of argument and research. Ramos v. Kewane Hospital, 2013 IL App (3d) 120001, ¶ 37. Arguments not properly developed in an appellant's opening brief "are forfeited and shall not be raised in the reply brief, in oral argument, or on petition for rehearing." Ill. S.Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).
¶ 67 Thus, we find that Aaron has forfeited this issue for failing to provide a cohesive argument in compliance with Rule 341, and we will not address Aaron's unsupported contention that the circuit court's finding that it was in Ava's best interest to terminate Aaron's parental rights was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 68 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 69 For the preceding reasons, we have determined that the circuit court's finding that Aaron was an unfit person was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and that Aaron has forfeited the issue of whether the circuit court's determination that termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of Ava was against the manifest weight of the evidence. As such, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court terminating Aaron's parental rights.
¶ 70 Affirmed.