Opinion
NO. 4-13-0896
02-04-2014
In re: An. C. and Jo. T., Minors, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. MARSHAN CARR, 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
Champaign County
No. 11JA47
Honorable
John R. Kennedy,
Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE POPE delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Knecht and Holder White concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The trial court's order terminating respondent father's parental rights is affirmed. ¶ 2 In November 2011, the State filed an amended petition for adjudication of abuse and neglect as to five siblings. Respondent is the father of two of the children, An. C. (born November 26, 2002) and Jo. T. (born October 21, 2007). ¶ 3 On November 9, 2011, the mother of An. C. admitted she abused An. C. and two of her siblings (Ke. C. (born April 28, 2004) and Jm. T. (born June 2, 2009)) by inflicting excessive corporal punishment, and neglected Jo. T. and another sibling (Ja. T. (born June 5, 2011)) by exposing him to the risk of excessive corporal punishment. On October 27, 2012, the State filed a petition to terminate respondent's parental rights. On September 20, 2013, the trial court terminated respondent's parental rights. Respondent appeals, contending the court's finding he was unfit was against the manifest weight of the evidence, as was the finding it was in the minors' best interests to terminate his parental rights. ¶ 4 We affirm.
¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 6 On November 9, 2011, An. C.'s mother admitted she inflicted excessive corporal punishment on three of her children, including An. C. (as well as Ke. C. and Jm. T.), when she struck them with electrical cords, pursuant to section 2-3(2)(v) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(2)(v) (West 2010)). She also admitted neglecting Jo. T. and another child (Ja. T.) by exposing them to the risk of excessive corporal punishment pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2010)). This court affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding the minors abused and neglected. In re An. C., 2012 IL App (4th) 120004-U. (Respondent was not living with the children or the children's mother when the corporal punishment was inflicted and was not a party to the first appeal.) ¶ 7 On October 17, 2012, the State filed a motion seeking a finding of unfitness and the termination of respondent's parental rights to the minors. The State alleged respondent was unfit by failing to (1) make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the minors' removal (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2010)); (2) make reasonable progress toward the minors' return within nine months of adjudication of neglect (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2010)); and (3) maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minors' welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2010)). ¶ 8 The trial court heard evidence of unfitness on January 29, March 5, April 10, and April 18, 2013. On May 8, 2013, the court found respondent unfit on all three grounds. On June 26, 2013, the court terminated An. C.'s mother's parental rights. We affirmed the trial court's judgment in that case, In re A.C., 2013 IL App (4th) 130558-U. Because the best-interest hearing concerning Jo. T. was scheduled for a later date, the court deferred its ruling on termination of respondent's rights to An. C. until a later date. ¶ 9 On September 20, 2013, the trial court held a best-interest hearing for Jo. T. and found it in both minors' best interests (An. C. and Jo. T.) to terminate respondent's parental rights.
¶ 10 A. The Fitness Hearing
¶ 11 The trial court heard evidence of unfitness over the course of several days, January 29, March 5, April 10, and April 18, 2013. We relate the evidence only as it applies to respondent. ¶ 12 Bill Fraley, a Lutheran Social Services of Illinois (LSSI) therapist, testified at the January 2013 hearing he had been respondent's individual therapist since August 2012. Respondent had made progress but had not yet completed the goals of the therapy. ¶ 13 At the fitness hearing on March 5, 2013, Autumn Berbaum testified she was employed with LSSI for the year between November 2011 and November 2012. During a portion of that time, she was the family's caseworker. According to Berbaum, respondent had physical custody of An. C. but then left in February 2012 (without An. C.) to go to Arizona with his paramour. (Results of a paternity test filed on February 23, 2012, showed respondent was also the father of Jo. T.) He returned to Illinois in June 2012, when his relationship with his paramour ended. During February 2012 through June 2012, respondent did not engage in any services, nor did he visit his children. ¶ 14 Brianna Coffey testified she was employed at LSSI for a period of time. In July 2012, she was assigned as the family's case manager. At that time, respondent had returned from Arizona and was living in Rantoul. He was living with a new paramour. Coffey needed to run a background check on this paramour before she could be present at respondent's visits. The initial background checks showed no problems. However, Coffey had been given an incorrect spelling of the girlfriend's name. In fact, this paramour had an open Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) case. When she spoke to respondent about this information, he told Coffey his girlfriend would not be around for anymore visits. Eventually, he told Coffey he ended this relationship. ¶ 15 During the time Coffey was the case manager, respondent's visits with the children went well. Respondent was to have a substance-abuse assessment at Prairie Center August 3, 2012, but he failed to attend. He did not complete a substance-abuse assessment during the time Coffey was the caseworker. Respondent was scheduled to attend parenting education at Cognition Works, but he missed sessions first because of transportation and then because of his work schedule. When individual parenting sessions were set up in order to accommodate respondent's attendance difficulties, he still failed to attend the parenting education. Respondent also had attendance issues with individual counseling. ¶ 16 Rachel Kramer is a supervisor with LSSI. When LSSI received the case from DCFS on February 15, 2012, respondent was residing in Arizona. Although at that time he had physical custody of An. C., he went to Arizona without her, leaving her with his mother. While in Arizona, he could not be referred for services, nor did he enjoy visitation with An. C. An. C. reported to Kramer she did not understand why respondent left her and moved to Arizona. ¶ 17 When Kramer sought contact information for respondent from his mother, Cassandra Carr (Carr) indicated she had no contact information for him. She had no idea how to reach him or even what city in Arizona he was residing in. It was not until two months after he left that he contacted LSSI. ¶ 18 At the continued hearing on April 18, 2013, respondent testified he loved An. C. and Jo. T. and wanted custody of them. He stated when he left for Arizona, it was his intention to return to Illinois. When he returned, he contacted his caseworker and participated in services, except for parenting education. ¶ 19 The State argued the evidence was clear and convincing respondent was unfit. He left the state, leaving his children behind in the middle of this case. The State argued if circumstances changed again, respondent would leave again. The guardian ad Litem (GAL) agreed the State had proved respondent unfit. She noted respondent had not started individual counseling until September 2012. During February through June 2012, respondent was out of the state and engaged in no services, nor did he visit with his children. ¶ 20 On May 8, 2013, the trial court announced its findings. It found respondent unfit on all three counts (failure to make reasonable efforts, failure to make reasonable progress within the initial nine months following adjudication, and failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the minors) as to Jo. T. and the first and third counts as to An. C. (Because respondent had custody of An. C. for part of the initial nine months following adjudication, the court concluded that period could not apply to An. C.)
¶ 21 B. The Best-Interest Hearing
¶ 22 Respondent did not introduce any evidence at the best-interest hearing for An. C. on June 26, 2013, nor at the best-interest hearing for Jo. T. on September 20, 2013. The trial court had written best-interest reports submitted by LSSI and the court appointed special advocate (CASA). The LSSI report indicated An. C. and her sibling Ke. C. had between 70 and 100 marks and scars on their necks, temples, buttocks, chests, and legs when a family member took the children to the police department. Jm. T., who was two years old then, had several marks and scars on his body, including a recent mark in the shape of a loop on his back and inner thigh. An. C. reported her mother, in addition to whipping her with cords, also punched and slapped An. C. repeatedly. ¶ 23 According to LSSI's report, following the initial dispositional hearing on December 21, 2011, custody of An. C. was placed with respondent. Guardianship remained with DCFS. At the permanency hearing on April 25, 2012, custody was removed from respondent because he was in Arizona. ¶ 24 At the time of this report, respondent was living with a third paramour and her three children in a two-bedroom basement apartment. Respondent's mother reported she was informed respondent had married this third girlfriend. On two occasions, July 25 and 30, 2013, the LSSI worker tried to contact respondent, to no avail. On July 31, 2013, he came to the LSSI office. In response to the worker's request, he provided a copy of his marriage license, which showed he married on July 18, 2013. ¶ 25 The report reflected respondent had consistently visited with An. C. and Jo. T. since July 2012. These visits were supervised. During one visit, he hit one of his stepchildren on the hand. On another visit, in April 2013, respondent appeared to be "too tired and disinterested" to interact with the children and the children appeared bored during the visit. In May 2013, respondent slept for the majority of the visit. It should be noted respondent's visits were scheduled for two hours every other week. He also was not home on July 31, 2013, at 5:30 p.m., when the LSSI aide and the children arrived for their visit. Overall, however, the visits were positive. ¶ 26 The LSSI report also reflected respondent was cooperative and receptive during his individual counseling sessions with Bill Fraley. Respondent eventually completed a comprehensive assessment for substance abuse and it was determined he did not meet the criteria for any treatment. By July 30, 2013, respondent had completed two of the four modules of the parenting class. However, he had difficulty understanding corporal punishment was not appropriate. Accordingly, he was found to have reached his maximum benefit rather than to have successfully completed the parenting program. ¶ 27 The children were living together with their grandmother, respondent's mother. Both children appeared comfortable in their grandmother's home and had a strong attachment to her. All of their needs were being met. Both children were receiving visits with their other siblings, who resided in a different foster home. LSSI recommended respondent's parental rights be terminated. ¶ 28 The CASA advocate had visited with An. C. on 21 occasions. She noted a strong attachment between An. C. and her grandmother. For most of the 22 months she was in substitute care, An. C. had resided with her grandmother. An. C. said she felt loved and protected by her grandmother. She reported feeling safe living with Carr. Although she loves respondent, when he moved to Arizona, his physical and emotional unavailability "crushed" her. An. C. expressed a preference to live with her grandmother. Carr planned to provide a "forever" home for An. C. ¶ 29 With regard to Jo. T., the CASA advocate had 19 visits. According to the CASA report, Jo. T. appeared to feel safe and comfortable living with his grandmother. He was in a home where he was loved and valued. He had lived with Carr for 13 of the last 22 months. The CASA felt he was thriving in the predictable, routine, and consistent environment in his grandmother's house. Carr provided a much needed balance of discipline and love for Jo. T. His grandmother was willing and able to provide him with a "forever" home. CASA also recommended respondent's parental rights be terminated. Thereafter, the trial court terminated respondent's parental rights. ¶ 30 This appeal followed.
¶ 31 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 32 On appeal, respondent argues the State failed to prove him unfit by clear and convincing evidence and the trial court's order terminating his parental rights was not in the best interests of the minors. ¶ 33 A parent will be deemed unfit if the State proves, by clear and convincing evidence, one or more of the grounds of unfitness enumerated in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2010)). See In re A.L., 409 Ill. App. 3d 492, 499, 949 N.E.2d 1123, 1128 (2011). This court will not overturn a finding of parental unfitness unless the finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence, meaning "the correctness of the opposite conclusion is clearly evident from a review of the evidence." In re T.A., 359 Ill. App. 3d 953, 960, 835 N.E.2d 908, 913 (2005). ¶ 34 In this case, respondent was found unfit on three grounds listed in section 1(D): he failed to (1) make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the minors' removal (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2010)); (2) make reasonable progress toward the return of the minors within nine months of the neglect adjudication (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2010)); and (3) maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minors' welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2010)). ¶ 35 We note the State need only prove one statutory ground to establish parental unfitness. In re Donald A.G., 221 Ill. 2d 234, 244, 850 N.E.2d 172, 177 (2006). Accordingly, we begin our analysis with respondent's argument the trial court's finding he failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minors' welfare was against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶ 36 When considering whether a parent is unfit for failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for a child, "the parent's efforts to communicate with and show interest in the child, not the success of those efforts," are key. In re Adoption of L.T.M., 214 Ill. 2d 60, 68, 824 N.E.2d 221, 226. (2005) (quoting In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d 255, 279, 562 N.E.2d 174, 185 (1990)). The State is required to prove unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. In re M.H., 196 Ill. 2d 356, 365, 751 N.E.2d 1134, 1141 (2001). As noted above, we will reverse a finding of unfitness only where it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re C.W., 199 Ill. 2d 198, 211, 766 N.E.2d 1105, 1113 (2002). ¶ 37 In this case, the trial court pointed out it had originally awarded custody of An. C. to respondent. Without notifying his caseworkers, respondent left for Arizona in February 2012 with his paramour. He had no contact whatsoever with the caseworker and his mother for at least two months. No one knew how to reach him or even where he was located in Arizona. He did not engage in services from February through June of 2012 and did not visit his children from February until July 2012. He came back to Illinois when his relationship with his paramour ended. Upon his return to Illinois, he became involved with a second woman who provided incorrect or false information to the caseworker. It turned out she had an open case with DCFS, causing disruption to respondent's visits with his children. Respondent then took up with a third woman with three children of her own. He married her in July of 2013 and was living in a two-bedroom basement apartment. Clearly, two more children could not be accommodated there. ¶ 38 In the span of February 2012 to July 2013, respondent was engaged to three different women. Rather than focus his concern on providing his children with a stable, nurturing home, it appears he focused instead on relationships with women. Moreover, as the trial court noted, at a time when his children clearly needed him because their mother would not provide a safe home for them, he took off with a girlfriend to Arizona. He did not call or contact his children, his caseworker, or his mother for at least two months. He did not see his children for at least five months. Moreover, he did not complete his services successfully. The court's finding respondent failed to exhibit a reasonable degree of concern or responsibility for the welfare of his children was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶ 39 The trial court further found at the best-interest hearing respondent's leaving at this crucial time resulted in a sense of real insecurity for his children. They would be wondering whether he would leave them again when they needed him. Both An. C. and Jo. T. were well cared for by their paternal grandmother. They felt loved and valued in her home and were living in a stable environment where their needs were a priority. The trial court's finding it was in the children's best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights was supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's decision to terminate respondent's parental rights to An. C. and Jo. T.
¶ 40 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 41 The trial court's findings respondent is unfit and terminating his parental rights are affirmed. ¶ 42 Affirmed.