Opinion
4-22-0021 4-22-0022 4-22-0023 4-22-0024
05-27-2022
In re B.H., a Minor v. Britney H., Respondent-Appellant. The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, In re Br. H, a Minor The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Britney H., Respondent-Appellant In re Brai. H., a Minor The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Britney H., Respondent-Appellant In re J.H., a Minor The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Britney H., Respondent-Appellan
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 Adams County No. 17JA85, 17JA87. 17JA88 Honorable John C. Wooleyhan, Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Turner and Harris concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
KNECHT, PRESIDING JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding the court's findings respondent was an unfit parent and it was in the minors' best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 Respondent mother, Britney H., appeals from the trial court's judgments terminating her parental rights to B.H. (born October 4, 2007), Br. H. (born August 26, 2008), Brai. H. (December 3, 2010), and J.H. (born October 23, 2014). On appeal, respondent argues the trial court's findings she was an unfit parent and it was in the minors' best interests to terminate her parental rights are against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 The parental rights of the minors' biological fathers were also terminated during the proceedings below. They are not parties to this appeal.
¶ 5 A. Adjudications of Neglected
¶ 6 In November 2017, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship, alleging, in part, the minors were neglected in that they were subject to an environment injurious to their welfare because of a history of domestic violence between one of the minor's father and respondent, as well as respondent's substance abuse. That same month, the trial court entered orders granting temporary custody to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
¶ 7 In April 2018, the trial court entered adjudicatory orders finding the minors to be neglected based upon the reasons alleged in the State's petitions for adjudication of wardship.
¶ 8 In May 2018, the trial court entered dispositional orders adjudicating the minors wards of the court and placing guardianship and custody with DCFS.
¶ 9 B. Motions to Terminate Parental Rights
¶ 10 In June 2020, the State filed motions to terminate respondent's parental rights to the minors. In the motions, the State alleged respondent was an unfit parent as she (1) failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the minors from her care (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2018)); and (2) failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minors to her care within certain nine-month periods following the minors' adjudications of neglected (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2018)). The identified nine-month periods, as later supplemented, were October 1, 2019, to July 1, 2020, and July 17, 2020, to April 16, 2021. The State further alleged it was in the minors' best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights and appoint DCFS as guardian with the power to consent to adoption.
¶ 11 C. Fitness Hearing
¶ 12 In December 2021, the trial court held a fitness hearing. The State presented testimony from a caseworker who had been assigned to the minors' cases since October 2019 and a parent coach who worked with respondent between November 2019 and the spring of 2020, as well as an integrated assessment and several service plans. In addition, the State moved for the court to take judicial notice of its prior adjudicatory and dispositional orders and the underlying petitions for adjudication of wardship, which was granted. Respondent did not present any evidence. The following is gleaned from the evidence presented.
¶ 13 Following the completion of an integrated assessment, it was recommended respondent complete certain services related to substance abuse, mental health, cooperation, parenting, and domestic violence. The service recommendations were incorporated into service plans, and respondent's progress on the service recommendations was evaluated at various points.
¶ 14 In November 2019, respondent's progress on the service recommendations was evaluated for the period of May 2019 through November 2019. Respondent's progress was rated satisfactory on all the service recommendations. However, because visitations with the minors were found to be chaotic and respondent demonstrated a difficulty gaining control over the minors, a service recommendation related to displaying appropriate interactions with the minors was added, and respondent was referred to a parent coach.
¶ 15 In May 2020, respondent's progress on the service recommendations was evaluated for the period of November 2019 through May 2020. Respondent's progress on services related to substance abuse was rated unsatisfactory. On April 8, 2020, respondent failed to appear for a drug screen. Respondent reported her absence resulted from her being out of town. On April 22, 2020, respondent tested positive for methamphetamines. Respondent adamantly denied any substance abuse. On May 11, 2020, respondent failed to appear for a drug screen. Respondent reported her absence resulted from her missing the message to appear. Respondent continued to attend substance abuse counseling, and her counselor reportedly did not believe respondent had relapsed. Respondent's progress on services related to displaying appropriate interactions with the minors was also rated unsatisfactory. Respondent, although receptive to feedback from the parent coach, lacked consistency in following through with recommendations during visitations. The parent coach, after working with respondent over an approximate four-month period, did not observe respondent to make any progress towards developing more nurturing behavior, providing more structured visitations, or issuing appropriate discipline. In June 2020, visitations with the minors were halted. Respondent's progress on the other service recommendations was rated satisfactory.
¶ 16 In November 2020, respondent's progress on the service recommendations was evaluated for the period of May 2020 through November 2020. Respondent's progress on services related to substance abuse was rated unsatisfactory. On July 6, 2020, respondent failed to appear for a drug screen. After failing to appear, she appeared at a different facility that same day and tested negative. On July 29, 2020, a drug screen was rejected due to a possible interference. Because visitation had been halted, respondent progress on services related to displaying appropriate interactions with the minors was also rated unsatisfactory. Respondent's progress on the other service recommendations was rated satisfactory.
¶ 17 In May 2021, respondent's progress on the service recommendations was evaluated for the period of November 2020 through May 3, 2021. Respondent's progress on services related to substance abuse was rated unsatisfactory. Respondent failed to appear for drug screens on the following dates: November 4, 2020; December 21, 2020; January 15, 2021; April 16, 2021; April 21, 2021; April 23, 2021; and May 3, 2021. As to her failure to appear on December 21, 2020, respondent reported she had lost her ID. As to her failure to appear on January 15, 2021, respondent stated she was unable to obtain an ID as she was waiting for her birth certificate. Respondent also stopped attending substance abuse counseling believing, contrary to the opinion of her counselor, she was no longer in need of services. Respondent's progress on services related to mental health was also rated unsatisfactory. Respondent stopped attending mental health counseling believing, contrary to the opinion of her counselor, she was no longer in need of services. Because visitation had been halted, respondent progress on services related to displaying appropriate interactions with the minors was also rated unsatisfactory. Respondent's progress on the other service recommendations was rated satisfactory.
¶ 18 The minors' caseworker believed respondent had not made substantial progress to have the minors returned to her care since June 2020.
¶ 19 Based on this information, the trial court found respondent was an unfit parent for all the reasons alleged in the State's motions to terminate parental rights.
¶ 20 D. Best-Interests Hearing
¶ 21 Immediately following the fitness hearing, the trial court conducted a best-interests hearing. The State presented testimony from the caseworker who had been assigned to the minors' cases since October 2019. Respondent did not present any evidence. The following is gleaned from the testimony presented.
¶ 22 Since November 2017, the minors had been in DCFS care. While in DCFS care, the minors experienced multiple placements, and three of the minors were hospitalized for mental health issues. At the time of the best-interests hearing, the minors were in separate placements, but they received regular sibling visitations. In their placements, the minors' needs were being met, and they were bonded to their respective caregivers. Each of the caregivers had given permanency commitments. The minors struggled with anxiety as it related to "not knowing where the case is going." At times, they had asked if they would see respondent again. They did not ask to return home. Respondent continued to make inquiries about the minors and their well-being and provided gifts for them.
¶ 23 Based on this information, the trial court found it would be in the minors' best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights. The court thereafter entered written orders terminating respondent's parental rights to each minor.
¶ 24 This appeal followed.
¶ 25 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 26 On appeal, respondent argues the trial court's findings she was an unfit parent and it was in the minors' best interests to terminate her parental rights are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State disagrees.
¶ 27 A. Unfitness Finding
¶ 28 Respondent asserts the trial court's finding she was an unfit parent is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 29 In a proceeding to terminate parental rights, the State must prove parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. In re N.G., 2018 IL 121939, ¶ 28, 115 N.E.3d 102. A trial court's finding of parental unfitness will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. ¶ 29. A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence "only where the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent." Id.
¶ 30 The trial court found respondent was an unfit parent as defined in section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2018)). Section 1(D)(m)(ii) provides, in part, a parent will be considered an "unfit person" if he or she fails "to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent during any [nine]-month period following the adjudication of neglected ***." Id.
¶ 31 "Reasonable progress" has been defined as "demonstrable movement toward the goal of reunification." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re C.N., 196 Ill.2d 181, 211, 752 N.E.2d 1030, 1047 (2001). This is an objective standard. In re F.P., 2014 IL App (4th) 140360, ¶ 88, 19 N.E.3d 227. The benchmark for measuring a parent's progress toward reunification "encompasses the parent's compliance with the service plans and the court's directives, in light of the condition which gave rise to the removal of the child, and in light of other conditions which later become known and which would prevent the court from returning custody of the child to the parent." C.N., 196 Ill.2d at 216-17.
¶ 32 In determining a parent's fitness based on reasonable progress, a court may only consider evidence from the relevant time period. In re Reiny S., 374 Ill.App.3d 1036, 1046, 871 N.E.2d 835, 844 (2007). Courts are limited to that period "because reliance upon evidence of any subsequent time period could improperly allow a parent to circumvent her own unfitness because of a bureaucratic delay in bringing her case to trial." Id.
¶ 33 In this case, a relevant time period was July 17, 2020, to April 16, 2021. During that period, the evidence showed respondent failed to appear for drug screens on November 4, 2020, December 21, 2020, January 15, 2021, and April 16, 2021, and had a drug screen that was rejected for a possible interference on July 29, 2020. Respondent also stopped attending substance abuse and mental health counseling believing, contrary to the opinions of her counselor, she was no longer in need of services. Respondent's actions, particularly in light of the fact the minors came into care as a result of domestic violence and substance abuse issues, directly hindered progress toward any reunification with the minors. In fact, the minors' caseworker believed respondent had not made substantial progress toward reunification since June 2020. Given the information gleaned from the evidence presented, we find the trial court's unfitness finding based on respondent's failure to make reasonable progress is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 34 As only one ground for a finding of unfitness is necessary to uphold the trial court's judgments, we need not review the other ground for the court's unfitness finding. In re Z.M., 2019 IL App (3d) 180424, ¶ 70, 131 N.E.3d 1122.
¶ 35 B. Best-Interest Findings
¶ 36 Respondent also asserts the trial court's findings it was in the minors' best interests to terminate her parental rights are against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 37 In a proceeding to terminate parental rights, the State must prove termination is in the child's best interests by a preponderance of the evidence. In re D.T., 212 Ill.2d 347, 367, 818 N.E.2d 1214, 1228 (2004); see also 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2018) (setting forth several factors a trial court must consider when determining whether termination of parental rights would be in a child's best interest). A trial court's best-interest finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re J.B., 2019 IL App (4th) 190537, ¶ 33, 147 N.E.3d 953. Again, a finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only where the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. Id.
¶ 38 The evidence at the best-interests hearing demonstrated the minors, who had been in DCFS care for over four years, had finally obtained a sense of permanency. The minors resided at placements in which they were bonded to their caregivers, and their needs were being met. Each of the caregivers had given permanency commitments. While respondent demonstrated an interest in maintaining the parent-child relationships with the minors, respondent's interest had to yield to the minors' interests. See D. T., 212 Ill.2d at 364. Given the information gleaned from the evidence presented, we find the trial court's findings it was in the minors' best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 39 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 40 We affirm the trial court's judgments.
¶ 41 Affirmed.