Opinion
5-22-0268
08-22-2022
In re K.W., a Minor v. A.N., 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 Jefferson County. No. 21-JA-86 Honorable Evan L. Owens, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE MOORE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Wharton and Vaughan concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
MOORE JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: The dispositional order of the circuit court of Jefferson County that found it to be in the best interest of K.W. to be made a ward of the court and placed in the custody and guardianship of the Department of Children and Family Services is affirmed because the circuit court's findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and the selected disposition was not an abuse of discretion.
¶ 2 The respondent, A.N., appeals the circuit court of Jefferson County's April 25, 2022, dispositional order that found it in the best interest of the respondent's biological child, K.W., to make him a ward of the court and placed him in the custody and guardianship of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). The respondent challenges the findings made at the dispositional hearing, which are whether the State met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was consistent with the health, safety, and best interests of the minor and the public that the minor be made a ward of the court and whether the circuit court abused its discretion in choosing the disposition that the minor be placed in the custody and guardianship of DCFS. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 This case began with the filing, on December 17, 2021, of, inter alia, a petition for adjudication of wardship regarding the respondent's minor child, K.W., who was born in August 2021. The petition alleged that K.W. was a neglected minor in an environment that was injurious to his welfare because he was unable to protect himself and was at risk of harm due to domestic violence incidents between the respondent, A.N., and the child's father (Hayden W., who is not a party to this appeal); and that the parents violated a no contact order entered in Marion County case 21-CF-21, in which Hayden W. was charged with criminal sexual abuse against A.N., possession of a firearm, and possession of methamphetamine. It was alleged that on November 25, 2021, the parents were reported to have engaged in an argument while the mother was operating a motor vehicle and that either mother or father abruptly forced the vehicle to the side of the road, at which time the father removed the three-month-old from the vehicle and began walking alongside the roadway. On December 4, 2021, the father was reportedly intoxicated and trying to forcibly gain entry through the doors and windows of the home of the minor's maternal grandmother while the mother was present. Father also reportedly made threats against the life of the mother during the attempted entries. The Jefferson County Sheriff's Department responded to this incident. A third incident occurred on December 16, 2021, when mother, age 17, was returning home after visiting a bar with father. On the way home, mother retrieved the minor from his maternal grandmother's home. While the minor was in the vehicle, the father approached the mother's vehicle from behind in another vehicle. The parents then drove on country roads at reported speeds of 65 miles per hour. Once both stopped their respective vehicles a verbal altercation ensued.
¶ 5 A shelter care hearing was held on December 20, 2021, at which time the respondent and the child's father appeared. The circuit court heard testimony from the State's witness, Heather Gilbert, a public service administrator over investigations employed by DCFS. Gilbert testified regarding the domestic violence incidents and the pending criminal matter against father in Marion County and the accompanying no contact order. Hayden W. also testified at the hearing on his own behalf. Following the hearing, the circuit court found that probable cause for the filing of the petition existed, that there was an immediate and urgent necessity to remove K.W. from the home, and that leaving K.W. in the home would be contrary to his health, safety, and welfare based on the continuing police contact involving the mother and father without a plan of care for the minor, K.W.
¶ 6 An adjudicatory hearing was held on February 10, 2022. The respondent made a knowing and voluntary stipulation that K.W. was abused or neglected as defined by section 2-3 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1986 (705 ILCS 405/2-3 (West 2020)) in that the minor was in an environment that was injurious to the welfare of the minor as defined by section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1986 (id. § 2-3(1)(b)). The respondent stipulated to an amended paragraph 3(g) of the petition for adjudication which stated "[t]he mother and father have ongoing issues that have resulted in police involvement. The minor was present during multiple incidents. Due to the minor's age, he is unable to protect himself and is at risk of harm."
¶ 7 On April 25, 2022, the circuit court held the dispositional hearing. The dispositional report prepared by Caritas Family Solutions (Caritas), a DCFS affiliated agency, was admitted for the circuit court's consideration without objection. Of note, the dispositional report stated that respondent was receiving three supervised visits a week. The visits were supervised by a foster parent and occurred at the foster parent's home. The report recommended that custody stay with DCFS, that guardianship of the minor be granted to DCFS, that the parents be admonished to comply and cooperate with the services to correct conditions which led to DCFS involvement, that discretion of visitation be left with Caritas/DCFS, that reasonable efforts be given to Caritas/DCFS, and that a permanency hearing be scheduled.
¶ 8 McKenzie Lanham was the only witness to testify at the hearing and was called by the State. Lanham testified that she was employed by Caritas as a foster care case manager. In this role, she assessed the safety, well-being, and permanency of the children and worked with the parents towards reunification. Lanham testified that supervised visitation was currently taking place and before unsupervised visits would be recommended, she and Caritas would "recommend that we see more stability, um, in services, progressing in our services. Making sure that we're not just checking boxes, that we are getting, um-that we're understanding our services that's asked of us." She testified that it would be beneficial to see more completion of services and more stability before making a recommendation to return K.W. to home. Lanham testified that Caritas's policy was to see progress towards the service plans and at the time of the hearing, A.N. would be rated as unsatisfactory because the case is so new. During cross-examination by A.N.'s counsel, Lanham was asked if there was not such a policy in place would she be in favor of returning the minor to A.N. Lanham stated, "I would still myself personally need to verify that [A.N.] is staying safe with the recommendations that we've given her."
¶ 9 The same day, the circuit court entered a written dispositional order finding that it was consistent with the health, welfare, and safety of the minor and in the best interest of the minor to make the minor a ward of the court. The respondent was found, for reasons other than financial circumstances alone, "to be unfit and unable to care for, protect, train, educate, supervise or discipline the minor and placement with her is contrary to the health, safety and best interests of the minor because further services need to be engaged in and stability shown." K.W. was made a ward of the court and custody was placed with DCFS.
¶ 10 Following the circuit court's order, this timely appeal was filed.
¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 12 The Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2021)) provides a step-by-step process to be used in determining whether a child should be removed from his or her parents and made a ward of the court. In re Arthur H., 212 Ill.2d 441, 462 (2004). The first step of the process begins with the State filing a petition for wardship. Id. Then, a temporary custody hearing is conducted at which the court must "determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the child is neglected, whether there is an immediate and urgent necessity to remove the child from the home and whether reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the removal of the child or that no efforts reasonably can be made to prevent or eliminate the necessity of removal." Id. If probable cause is found, the child is placed in temporary custody and the process continues. Id.
¶ 13 The second step of the process, the adjudicatory hearing, requires the court to determine whether the child was the subject of abuse, neglect, or dependence. Id. If the State fails to prove the allegations of abuse, neglect, or dependence by a preponderance of the evidence, the petition must be dismissed. Id. at 464.
¶ 14 If a finding of abuse, neglect, or dependence is made, the third step is reached, at which point the circuit court must hold a dispositional hearing. 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2) (West 2020).
"At the dispositional hearing, the court shall determine whether it is in the best interests of the minor and the public that he be made a ward of the court, and, if he is to be made a
ward of the court, the court shall determine the proper disposition best serving the health, safety and interests of the minor and the public. The court also shall consider the permanency goal set for the minor, the nature of the service plan for the minor and the services delivered and to be delivered under the plan. All evidence helpful in determining these questions, including oral and written reports, may be admitted and may be relied upon to the extent of its probative value, even though not competent for the purposes of the adjudicatory hearing." Id. § 2-22(1).
"The purpose of a dispositional hearing is not to terminate parental rights." In re April C., 326 Ill.App.3d 225, 237 (2001). Rather, "a dispositional hearing serves the purpose of allowing the circuit court to decide what further actions are in the best interests of a minor, and the hearing and ruling on whether to make a minor a ward of the court gives the parents 'fair notice of what they must do to retain their rights to their child' in the face of any future termination proceedings." Id.
¶ 15 On appeal, the respondent challenges the findings made following the dispositional hearing. The respondent contests the finding that made K.W. a ward of the court and the disposition selected by the circuit court that placed K.W. in the custody and guardianship of DCFS.
¶ 16 "Cases involving abuse, neglect and wardship are sui generis; each case must be decided on its own distinct set of facts and circumstances." In re M.W., 386 Ill.App.3d 186, 197 (2008). "Though the court, when making the wardship determination, considers the specific parent's capability to care for the child, *** the wardship determination is based on the best interest to the child when considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the child's life." In re D.S., 2018 IL App (3d) 170319, ¶ 15.
¶ 17 After a finding of warship is made, the circuit court makes a fitness finding which considers many of the same facts as the wardship finding. In re K.E.-K., 2018 IL App (3d) 180026, ¶ 21. "When ruling on parental unfitness, a court is not to consider the child's best interests; 'it is the parent's past conduct in the then-existing circumstances that is under scrutiny.'" In re Latifah P., 315 Ill.App.3d 1122, 1128 (2000) (quoting In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill.2d 255, 276 (1990)). "[T]he term 'unfit' in the section relating to removing custody and guardianship from a parent following a finding of neglect differs in meaning from the unfitness required to be found for termination of parental rights for purposes of appointing a guardian with consent to adopt." In re T.B., 215 Ill.App.3d 1059, 1061 (1991).
¶ 18 The circuit court's findings regarding wardship and fitness at the dispositional hearing stage are given great deference because it has the best opportunity to view and evaluate the parties and their testimony. In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill.App.3d 1052, 1064 (2006); In re T.B., 215 Ill.App.3d at 1061. Because a trial court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence, a reviewing court will not overturn the circuit court's findings merely because the reviewing court may have reached a different decision. In re Lakita B., 297 Ill.App.3d 985, 994 (1998). A circuit court's determination of wardship or fitness will be reversed "only if the factual findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence." In re Kamesha J., 364 Ill.App.3d 785, 795 (2006). A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. In re C.N., 196 Ill.2d 181, 208 (2001).
¶ 19 Following a determination of wardship and a finding that the parents are unfit, the circuit court is tasked with determining a disposition that best serves the minor's interests. In re Al. S., 2017 IL App (4th) 160737, ¶ 40.
"Under section 2-27(1) of the Juvenile Court Act, the trial court may commit a minor to DCFS wardship if it determines that the parent is unfit or unable, for some reason other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minor
and that the health, safety, and best interests of the minor will be jeopardized if the minor remains in the custody of the parent. [Citation.] *** The health, safety and interests of the minor remain the guiding principles when issuing an order of disposition regarding the custody and guardianship of a minor ward. [Citation.] The trial court's determination will be reversed only if the factual findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence or if the court abused its discretion by selecting an inappropriate dispositional order. [Citation.]" In re Kamesha J., 364 Ill.App.3d at 795.
A circuit court "abuses its discretion when no reasonable person would agree with its decision." In re M.P., 408 Ill.App.3d 1070, 1073 (2011).
¶ 20 The respondent points to the progress she had made at the time the dispositional hearing was conducted to support her position that K.W. should not have been made a ward of the court and placed in the custody and guardianship of DCFS. The State presented evidence at the dispositional hearing that the respondent was complying with the recommended services; however, it was premature to assess the respondent's overall progress. Additionally, the State presented a dispositional report that detailed significant incidents between the parents that occurred in the presence of K.W. and placed him in danger by reason of his age and inability to protect himself.
¶ 21 Following the dispositional hearing, the circuit court found and stated on the record as follows:
"that although both parents are making progress they should be commended for the same because they have come a long way hopefully from running around on the roads with a new baby in their arms, or chasing each other in cars, or fighting at the bar or beating on windows. Those things can never happen again, and both parents understand that I think today. Um, that we're no longer children, we're the adults even though we are young adults.
Um, mom is still getting ready to complete high school, and dad is starting his career as a worker and getting involved, and both starting their careers as parents so we're making progress. But at this time, I do find that neither parent is fit or able to take care of this child alone in their home, and therefore, custody and guardianship of the minor is placed with the guardianship administrator of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and [K.W.] is made a ward of the court."
¶ 22 Based on the totality of the circumstances, we find that a result opposite to that reached by the circuit court as to wardship and fitness was not clearly apparent and the result reached by the circuit court was supported by the evidence. It was not an abuse of discretion to select a disposition that placed K.W. in the custody and guardianship of DCFS.
¶ 23 Affirmed.