From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bridgman (In re T.S.A.)

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT
May 16, 2013
2013 Ill. App. 4th 121155 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

Opinion

NO. 4-12-1155

05-16-2013

In re: T.S.A., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. IVA SUE BRIDGMAN, Respondent-Appellant.


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

Circuit Court of

Vermilion County

No. 11JA40


Honorable

Michael D. Clary,

Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court's order vacating its wardship of the child and granting the father custody was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶ 2 Respondent mother, Iva Sue Bridgman, appeals the order vacating wardship over T.S.A. (born July 24, 2010) and granting custody of T.S.A. to T.S.A.'s father, Thomas Arlington. Bridgman argues the trial court should not have closed the case because she would be left without means to progress and regain custody of T.S.A. and Arlington would be able to dictate contact between her and her son. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In March 2011, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship on behalf of T.S.A. and three of his half-brothers. Bridgman is the mother of all four children. In the petition related to T.S.A., the State alleged T.S.A. was neglected in that his environment was injurious to his welfare because (1) Bridgman suffered mental-health issues, and (2) Bridgman threatened a police officer with a knife in the presence of one of T.S.A.'s half-siblings (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2010)). ¶ 5 In April 2011, an adjudicatory hearing was held. The trial court found T.S.A. to be abused or neglected. The court specifically noted Bridgman had serious mental-health issues that affected her perception of reality and created a risk of clear physical danger to a child in her home. ¶ 6 In May 2011, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dispositional report. According to the report, DCFS became involved after the police went to Bridgman's residence looking for Arlington. Arlington, who was serving a six-month jail sentence for contempt of court due to a failure to pay child support for his four older children, failed to return to jail after his work release. The police found Arlington hiding under a bed. Arlington was taken into custody. At this time, while the children were present in the home, Bridgman picked up a knife and confronted the officers. Bridgman's three-year-old son, T.S.A.'s half-sibling, was between Bridgman and the officer. Bridgman reported she put the knife down, not because of what the officer said but "because of the voices in her head." Bridgman was arrested. Her four children, including T.S.A., were taken into custody. Arlington told officers he did not return from work release because he was concerned for his son's safety due to Bridgman's erratic behavior. ¶ 7 According to the dispositional report, Bridgman had given birth to 13 children and had a lengthy history with DCFS. In May 2004, Bridgman's parental rights to six of her children were terminated. Custody of two other children was granted to those children's biological father. One child had died. ¶ 8 On May 19, 2011, the trial court entered its dispositional order, finding Bridgman and Arlington unfit and unable to parent T.S.A. The court specifically found Bridgman had untreated mental-health issues and the parents needed to comply with the services offered by DCFS. T.S.A. and Bridgman's other three children were made wards of the court and placed in the custody and guardianship of DCFS. ¶ 9 A permanency report, dated November 2011, reviewed Bridgman's and Arlington's efforts. According to the report, Bridgman resided in a home with a roommate, Jerry Bird. The house was a two-bedroom home with a basement, which served as Bridgman's bedroom. Bridgman's home was tidy and clean and appropriate for reunification. Bridgman was not employed, but she received $580 per month from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and $65 per month in survivor benefits. Bridgman was not involved in a romantic relationship. Bridgman was out on bond. No new charges had been brought since the case opened. Bridgman participated in urine screenings before each visit with her children; all screenings were negative. Bridgman participated in counseling and was deemed "cooperative, open, and willing to share." Bridgman attended every visit with her children. Despite initially struggling with discipline, Bridgman was "doing a better job of following through with appropriate means." Bridgman showed affection to her children and demonstrated good parenting skills. ¶ 10 The permanency report further indicated Bridgman, at an August 2011 substance-abuse assessment, was evasive. Prairie Center was unable to complete an assessment. Regarding Bridgman's mental health, the report stated Bridgman participated in a psychological examination with Dr. Dave Coleman in March 2011. Dr. Coleman diagnosed Bridgman with schizophrenia, undifferentiated type, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. She was found unfit to stand trial in April 2011. Bridgman disputed Dr. Coleman's findings and was evaluated by Carol Andrews. During a two-hour interview with Andrews in June 2011, Andrews found no indication of delusional thinking. In July 2011, Bridgman was found fit to stand trial. At an intake mental-health assessment in September 2011, Bridgman was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. ¶ 11 According to the permanency hearing report, Arlington was released from jail in May 2011. He resided with his paramour, Diane Kimberlin, in a two-bedroom apartment. The home was appropriate for reunification. In November 2011, DCFS decided to allow Arlington to visit T.S.A. in Arlington and Kimberlin's home. Arlington worked full-time. Arlington's drug screenings were negative. Kimberlin had no Child Abuse and Neglect Tracking System (CANTS) or Law Enforcement Agencies Data System (LEADS) history and welcomed T.S.A. into her home. ¶ 12 The report further indicates Arlington attended 11 of 12 supervised visits with T.S.A. Arlington was attentive to his son's needs, but he needed to work on engaging T.S.A. in play and providing activities and healthy snacks during the visits. ¶ 13 The November 2011 permanency order specified return home within 12 months as the appropriate permanency goal. In making this order, the trial court found both Bridgman and Arlington made reasonable and substantial progress and reasonable efforts toward T.S.A.'s return home. The court found DCFS had not made reasonable efforts in providing services toward the achievement of the permanency goal. The court reasoned psychological evaluations were ordered in May 2011, but DCFS had not completed the referral to an agency until October 2011. ¶ 14 In February 2012, DCFS submitted a permanency report. According to the report, Bridgman's home continued to be appropriate for reunification. Bridgman's substance-abuse assessment recommended no treatment. She participated in individual counseling. Counseling notes indicate Bridgman needed to continue working on calming herself when angry so she could keep her children's needs a priority. Bridgman completed a psychiatric evaluation in December 2011, in which Dr. Hayng-sung Yang reported no diagnosable psychiatric disorders. The results of a psychological evaluation had not been reported. Bridgman attended each visit with her children. She interacted with her children and did "a good job of having snacks and meals" available. ¶ 15 In June 2012, DCFS submitted a permanency report, which indicates Bridgman continued to cooperate with her services. Bridgman remained unemployed. After her psychological evaluation, Bridgman was diagnosed with delusional disorder. Bridgman continued having appropriate visits with her children and her home continued to be a proper place for reunification. ¶ 16 Another permanency report was filed in August 2012. DCFS reported Bridgman continued to cooperate with services and was dedicated to the return home of her children. Bridgman had begun unsupervised visitation. Bridgman continued to share a home with her roommate, Bird. She paid $350 each month in rent. The home was appropriate for reunification, but DCFS indicated concern regarding the amount of space in the home. Bridgman reported the children would share one of the bedrooms, and she would organize the basement to make a playroom for the children. Bridgman slept on the couch and planned to continue to do so once the children returned home. Bridgman remained unemployed. ¶ 17 DCFS further reported Bridgman, because she showed improved parenting skills and had nearly completed her parenting classes, began receiving unsupervised visits in July 2012. A caseworker frequently dropped in during visits and noted no concerns. It was planned the three older boys would be "returned home on 24/7 extended overnights before Christmas 2012." By that same time, T.S.A. would be returned to Arlington "on 24/7 extended overnights" and Bridgman would receive T.S.A. "at times to be determined and agreed upon between [DCFS], Bridgman, and" Arlington. The reporter noted "the slow progression of unsupervised visits is due to concerns with [Bridgman's] ability to maintain control of all four children for extended periods of time." Bridgman showed improvement in this regard. ¶ 18 According to the August 2012 report, the results of Bridgman's psychological evaluation were presented to Dr. Yang, who performed the psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Yang refused to see Bridgman for another psychiatric evaluation because he felt Bridgman did not need psychiatric care. ¶ 19 DCFS reported Arlington was committed to T.S.A.'s return and complied with services despite his demanding work schedule. Arlington continued to share a two-bedroom apartment with Kimberlin. T.S.A. had a room furnished with a toddler bed. Arlington remained employed. He had no mental-health concerns. Arlington participated in all visits. Both Arlington and Kimberlin were loving and affectionate to T.S.A. In July 2012, unsupervised visits began. In August 2012, 72-hour overnight visits began. DCFS planned to return T.S.A. to Arlington "on 24/7 extended overnights beginning September 28, 2012." DCFS opined "[g]iven [] Arlington's exceptional parenting skills and the stability in the home," Arlington could "provide the best environment for" T.S.A. ¶ 20 The trial court entered a permanency order in September 2012. The court found both parents made reasonable and substantial progress and reasonable efforts toward reunification. ¶ 21 In November 2012, DCFS filed its last permanency report in this case before the trial court granted custody of T.S.A. to Arlington. The report states Bridgman remained unemployed. She had not been referred for further mental-health services. On November 9, 2012, the three other children were returned home "on 24/7 extended overnight visits." Bridgman received T.S.A. overnight on Wednesdays and every other weekend from Friday until Sunday. Bridgman was "very attentive to the children" and provided for their needs. All children appeared well-adjusted and well-bonded to Bridgman. ¶ 22 According to the permanency report, there were concerns. One was that Bridgman had T.S.A., who was two years old, in his car seat in the front seat of her vehicle and Bridgman often transported all four children in a car that only had two seatbelts in the back. The caseworker addressed the issue with Bridgman. ¶ 23 The report further indicates concerns about Arlington's and Bridgman's ability to co-parent T.S.A. One Sunday in November, Bridgman was supposed to have returned T.S.A. by 5 p.m. Arlington called the caseworker at 5:30 p.m., reporting Bridgman had not yet returned T.S.A. and was not responding to text messages or telephone calls. Arlington stated he would call the police. At 5:45 p.m. Bridgman reported she was at Arlington's home. The caseworker further reported she was constantly receiving telephone calls from Arlington and Kimberlin that Bridgman was running late and giving T.S.A. candy and soda. The caseworker opined Arlington and Bridgman did not have effective communication. Bridgman feared if Arlington got custody of T.S.A., she would not be allowed to visit him. Arlington and Kimberlin displayed genuine concern regarding T.S.A.'s inappropriate behavior after visits with his mother and the lack of supervision they believe he received while in Bridgman's care. The daycare provider reported T.S.A. showed some behavior concerns, that were "mostly evident after visits with [] Bridgman." ¶ 24 At the end of the report, DCFS recommended Arlington be granted custody and guardianship of T.S.A. and wardship be vacated. ¶ 25 In December 2012, the trial court held a permanency review hearing. At the close of the hearing, the court observed T.S.A. had been in his father's custody before the hearing and the initial petition alleged no neglect on Arlington's behalf. The court noted the difficulties between Arlington and Bridgman were similar to those shared by others who are not married and share a child. The court was uncertain any further services under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1-1 to 1-18 (West 2010)) were necessary, but noted a family court issue may need to be addressed in the future. The court concluded it agreed custody and guardianship of T.S.A. should be placed with Arlington and wardship vacated. The court admonished the parents "there will have to be efforts to work together with respect to visitation and other matters." ¶ 26 This appeal followed.

¶ 27 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 28 On appeal, Bridgman contends the case should not have been closed and custody of T.S.A. should not have been placed with Arlington. Bridgman contends such orders were erroneous because she is left without services or a means to regain custody of T.S.A. and her ability to visit T.S.A. is "at the whim of Arlington." ¶ 29 A trial court may order a wardship terminated and close proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act when it determines the health, safety, and best interests of the child and the public no longer necessitate the court's wardship of that child. 705 ILCS 405/2-31(2) (West 2010). The court has discretion to render a final decision regarding the placement of a child that is in the child's best interests. In re V.M., 352 Ill. App. 3d 391, 397, 816 N.E.2d 776, 781 (2004). This court will not disturb a trial court's determination of what is in the child's best interests unless the determination is clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316, 328, 518 N.E.2d 1041, 1046 (1988). A determination is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or when the findings of the trial court are unreasonable, arbitrary or not based on the evidence. In re Marriage of Dorfman, 2011 IL App (3d) 110099, ¶ 46, 956 N.E.2d 1040. ¶ 30 We find no error. Bridgman's effort to show the case was improperly closed falls short. Her basis for this argument is the denial of services to her necessary to regain custody of T.S.A. As shown above, a court is authorized under the Juvenile Court Act to close a case when it determines the health, safety, and child's and public's best interests no longer require the court's wardship of that child. 705 ILCS 405/2-31(2) (West 2010). Bridgman has not shown the trial court erroneously determined T.S.A.'s health, safety, and best interests no longer require the wardship of the court. Her argument fails. ¶ 31 The trial court's decision to place T.S.A. with Arlington is not unreasonable or arbitrary. The evidence shows Arlington was a devoted father who complied with the service requirements mandated by the trial court and DCFS. His conduct was not the basis for DCFS's involvement in the case, and Arlington demonstrated his ability to provide T.S.A. a stable and loving home. We are aware of Bridgman's commendable efforts toward reunification and the fact she loves and is bonded with T.S.A. The trial court, however, found T.S.A.'s best interests necessitated placement with his father. Nothing in the record establishes this decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶ 32 As the trial court found, Bridgman is not left without recourse. Should she and Arlington not be able to amicably reach a workable visitation schedule, she may be able to seek recourse in the family courts in the future.

¶ 33 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 34 For the stated reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment. ¶ 35 Affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Bridgman (In re T.S.A.)

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT
May 16, 2013
2013 Ill. App. 4th 121155 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Bridgman (In re T.S.A.)

Case Details

Full title:In re: T.S.A., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS…

Court:APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

Date published: May 16, 2013

Citations

2013 Ill. App. 4th 121155 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)