Opinion
5-21-0286 5-21-0287 5-21-0288 5-21-0289
03-15-2022
In re J.H., A.H., L.H., and Al. H., Minors v. C.H., 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 Marion County. Nos. 18-JA-4, 18-JA-5, 18-JA-6, 18-JA-7 Honorable Ericka A. Sanders, Judge, presiding.
VAUGHAN, JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Welch and Barberis concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
VAUGHAN, JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: The circuit court's determinations that respondent was unfit, and termination of her parental rights was in the minors' best interests, were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 In this consolidated appeal, respondent, mother, appeals the judgments in Marion County case Nos. 18-JA-4, 18-JA-5, 18-JA-6, and 18-JA-7, terminating her parental rights to J.H., A.H., L.H., and Al. H., respectively. Counsel was appointed to represent mother on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a motion with an attached memorandum pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging there was no merit to the appeal and requesting leave to withdraw as counsel. Mother was given proper notice and was granted an extension of time to file briefs, objections, or any other documents supporting her appeal. She has not filed a response. We have considered appointed counsel's Anders motion and the attached memorandum. For the following reasons, we now grant appointed counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgments of the circuit court of Marion County.
¶ 3 BACKGROUND
¶ 4 On February 7, 2018, the State filed four petitions for the adjudication of wardship alleging that J.H., A.H., L.H., and Al. H., respectively, were neglected as defined by section 2-3 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3 (West 2016)). The petition alleged that mother could not find stable housing, provide medical care for the children, and had other children removed from her care. Following a February 8, 2018, shelter care hearing, counsel was appointed for mother and the minors were placed in the temporary custody of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
Father is not a party to this appeal.
¶ 5 On February 26, 2018, Caritas Family Solutions (Caritas) filed a report indicating that mother had a long history of drug abuse and no housing. The minors were temporarily placed with an aunt and uncle. Multiple attempts to contact mother were unsuccessful. An adjudicatory hearing was scheduled for April 18, 2018.
¶ 6 A March 28, 2018, Caritas report indicated that mother agreed to an Integrated Assessment after initially resisting but failed to appear for the appointment. The caseworker had been unable to reach mother since, and as a result, mother was removed from the supervised visitation list for failing to contact the agency. Mother did not appear for a March 28, 2018, pretrial hearing. The April 18, 2018, adjudicatory hearing was continued until May 9, 2018, because mother was not present.
¶ 7 A May 7, 2018, Caritas report indicated that mother still had not contacted them and that the minors' foster mother reported that mother had attempted to contact the minors twice, but the children did not want to see her either time. On May 8, 2018, the State sought leave to file an amended petition for adjudication of wardship, which was withdrawn three weeks later. Mother appeared at the May 9, 2018, hearing. However, as a result of the State's motion, the adjudicatory hearing was continued to June 20, 2018. On June 13, 2018, Caritas filed a report indicating that mother still had not been in contact with them.
¶ 8 On June 20, 2018, mother appeared. The State advised the court that it would file amended petitions for adjudication which add an allegation that the minors were dependent because they were without a parent who could properly care for them and that mother would admit that allegation. After the amended petitions were filed, the court accepted the parents' admissions, entered an adjudicatory order finding the minors dependent, and scheduled a dispositional hearing for July 18, 2018.
¶ 9 On July 16, 2018, mother's appointed counsel filed a motion to continue the dispositional hearing because she had taken other employment. A July 17, 2018, Caritas dispositional report indicated that mother had inquired about a bus pass and was advised by the agency that a pass could be provided. Mother indicated that she did not have a working phone and would contact the agency about the bus pass, but never did.
¶ 10 The dispositional hearing was continued to September 5, 2018, because new counsel had not yet been appointed for mother. Reports filed by Caritas on July 25 and August 31 of 2018 indicated that mother still had not contacted the agency. The August 21, 2018, report also stated that the agency performed a diligent search for mother, and that she still had not completed the Integrated Assessment. Mother failed to appear for the September 5, 2018, dispositional hearing so it was continued until September 12, 2018.
¶ 11 Mother's newly appointed counsel appeared at the September 12, 2018, dispositional hearing, but mother did not. The court set a permanency hearing for December 19, 2018, and entered a dispositional order making the minors wards of the court based on mother's failure to make any progress on her service plans.
¶ 12 A December 17, 2018, Caritas report indicated that mother still had not contacted the agency or worked toward any of her service goals. Mother did not appear for the permanency review hearing. The court entered an order setting a permanency goal of return home within 12 months. A January 27, 2019, service plan rated mother unsatisfactory because she had not completed the Integrated Assessment or had any contact with her caseworker.
¶ 13 A March 21, 2019, Caritas report indicated that mother contacted the caseworker to ask what she needed to do in order to see her children and arranged to meet with the caseworker but failed to appear for that meeting. Mother did not appear for a March 27, 2019, permanency hearing. A July 26, 2019, Caritas report indicated that mother contacted the agency to inquire about the minors' new placement and to offer the names of relatives that might be willing to take the children. Mother was asked to provide additional information for the caseworker. Mother also promised to complete the Integrated Assessment but never did so. At the July 31, 2019, permanency hearing-at which mother did not appear-it was revealed that mother had an unsupervised visit with the children that the caseworker was not aware until after the fact. The court entered a permanency order retaining the return home goal. An August 7, 2019, service plan rated mother unsatisfactory because she had not completed the Integrated Assessment and had not contacted the caseworker. An October 24, 2019, Caritas report indicated that mother had contacted the caseworker and demanded that she be allowed to complete the Integrated Assessment over the phone. Although this is not how the Integrated Assessments are usually performed, the caseworker agreed and scheduled a time. Mother never called. After a permanency hearing, which mother did not attend, a permanency order was entered on October 30, 2019, retaining the return home goal.
¶ 14 A January 21, 2020, Caritas report indicated that mother contacted the foster parents to ask if the minors could say goodbye to their dying grandmother and to attend her funeral. The minors did not attend. A January 29, 2020, permanency order retained the return home goal, but noted mother had not made substantial progress toward that goal and that she had not attended the permanency hearing. A June 25, 2020, Caritas report indicated that the case passed legal screening based on mother's lack of reasonable efforts and reasonable progress. The court retained the return home goal but noted that neither parent made substantial progress toward that goal. A September 9, 2020, Caritas report again indicated that mother remained out of contact and noncompliant with services. The report requested that the permanency goal be changed to substitute care pending termination of parental rights.
¶ 15 On September 23, 2020, the State filed a petition to terminate parental rights. The petition alleged that mother was an unfit person as defined by section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2018)) in that she (1) abandoned the minors (id. § 1(D)(a)), (2) failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the minors (id. § 1(D)(b)), (3) deserted the minors for more than three months preceding the commencement of the proceedings (id. § 1(D)(c)), (4) failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the bases of the minors' removal during any nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect or abuse (id. § 1(D)(m)(i)), and (5) failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minors within any nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect or abuse (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)).
¶ 16 On October 8, 2020, Caritas filed an addendum report indicating that mother still had not completed the Integrated Assessment. A permanency review hearing was held on October 14, 2020. Mother did not appear. Noting that mother had not engaged in services, kept in contact with the caseworkers, or visited the minors, the court changed the permanency goal to substitute care pending termination of parental rights and scheduled a termination hearing. Caritas reports, filed on December 30, 2020, and February 3, 2021, indicated that mother had not engaged in any services.
¶ 17 Mother did not appear at the April 14, 2021, hearing on the petition to terminate. Courtney Buss testified that she was the caseworker from March to December 2018. She had very few interactions with mother, stating that she would lose contact with mother and was unable to find her. She attempted to meet with mother several times to complete the Integrated Assessment, but mother never showed up. Buss identified the August 14, 2018, service plan, which was admitted into evidence as People's Exhibit 1. The only goal for that service plan was for mother to complete the Integrated Assessment, but she never did. Mother did not send cards or gifts to the children while Buss was the caseworker.
¶ 18 Bridgett McClure testified that she was the caseworker from December 2018 to April 2019. She never met mother and only spoke to her twice when mother would call her, noting that mother failed to provide a working phone number. McClure made two appointments with mother, but she never appeared. McClure identified the January 27, 2019, service plan, which was admitted as People's Exhibit 2.
¶ 19 Mattie Kuhnert testified that she was the caseworker from April 22, 2019, to March 16, 2020. She spoke with mother twice during this time. Kuhnert explained that she did not have contact information for mother because when mother would provide a phone number it would not work the next time it was used. The only service goal was the completion of the Integrated Assessment, but mother never completed the assessment. Mother was rated unsatisfactory on her service plans, which Kuhnert identified as People's Exhibits 3 and 4.
¶ 20 Kelsi Renn testified that she was the caseworker from March to December 2020. During this time, she spoke with mother by phone twice. Mother never asked to visit the children, paid any support, bought any clothes for them, or inquired about their education. Renn identified People's Exhibit 5 as the August 4, 2020, service plan she prepared.
¶ 21 Aurora King testified that she had been the caseworker since December 1, 2020. She spoke with mother twice about setting up an appointment to complete the Integrated Assessment, but mother did not appear either time. Mother had not completed any services or had any visitation with the children. Mother had not provided the children with any clothing or other support, had not sent them any cards, or presents, and had not inquired about their welfare.
¶ 22 The hearing was continued to June 16, 2021. Mother did not appear. The court found that the State had proved the allegations of the petition by clear and convincing evidence, and that mother was unfit.
¶ 23 Mother did not appear at the August 25, 2021, best-interests hearing. Stephanie Perez testified that she was a supervisor for Caritas and had been the supervisor for this case since its inception. Lindsie Pries was the current caseworker and had been since the end of June or beginning of July 2021. All of the caseworkers assigned to this case reported to her and none had ever expressed any concern about the children's foster placement. Perez visited the foster home twice and had no concerns about the placement. The home was safe and suitable for the children.
¶ 24 David Hodges, the minors' foster father and mother's first cousin, testified that the children had been placed with him and his wife (Cassandra) for a little over two years. Cassandra's four sons from a previous relationship also lived with them. David had recently added four additional bedrooms to the house, for a total of seven bedrooms. He and Cassandra had bonded with the minors, and they intended to adopt them if allowed. David had previously adopted two older siblings of the minors, who were now adults.
¶ 25 After the evidence was concluded and during final arguments, mother appeared. She claimed that she tried to get Caritas to acknowledge her for months. The court advised her that she could file a postjudgment motion and counsel would be appointed for her, but that the court intended to issue its judgment since mother had not appeared since 2018. The court found that it was in the minors' best interests that all parental rights be terminated and changed the permanency goal to adoption. The court appointed counsel for mother for the purpose of filing any posttrial motions, but no such motions were filed. Mother appealed.
¶ 26 ANALYSIS
¶ 27 Initially, we note that although motions to withdraw as counsel on appeal pursuant to Anders are typically made in criminal appeals, the Anders procedure has been held to be applicable in cases where counsel was appointed for indigent parents appealing the termination of their parental rights. In re Keller, 138 Ill.App.3d 746, 747 (1985).
¶ 28 The Act establishes a two-step process for terminating parental rights involuntarily. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2018). The State must first prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is an unfit person as defined by section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2018)). In re Tiffany M, 353 Ill.App.3d 883, 889 (2004). Section 1(D) of the Adoption Act sets forth numerous grounds "under which a parent may be found unfit, any of which standing alone may support" a finding of unfitness. Id. A circuit court's determination that there is clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness will not be disturbed on review unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. at 890.
¶ 29 One of the bases upon which the circuit court found mother unfit was "failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the [minors'] welfare." 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2018). Because the statutory language is in the disjunctive, any of these three elements standing alone can be a basis for unfitness. In re Jaron Z, 348 Ill.App.3d 239, 259 (2004). In examining allegations under this section, the court must focus on the parent's reasonable efforts rather than his or her success and must consider circumstances that may have made it difficult for the parent to visit, communicate with, or otherwise show an interest in the child. Id. In determining whether a parent demonstrated reasonable concern, interest, or responsibility as to the minor's welfare, the court must "examine the parent's conduct concerning the child in the context of the circumstances in which that conduct occurred." In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill.2d 255, 278 (1990). Circumstances warranting consideration include the parent's difficulty in obtaining transportation, actions or statements of others that hinder or discourage visitation with the minor, the parent's poverty, and whether the parent's failure to visit that child was motivated by the need to cope with other aspects of the parent's life or true indifference to, and a lack of concern for, the child. Id. at 278-79. If personal visits are impractical, other means of communication, such as letters, telephone calls, cards, and gifts to the child or those caring for the child, can demonstrate a reasonable degree of concern, interest, and responsibility, depending on "the content, tone, and frequency of those contacts under the circumstances." Id. at 279. However, a parent is not fit simply because he or she has demonstrated some interest or affection toward their child. In re Adoption of P.J.H., 2019 IL App (5th) 190089, ¶ 13. Noncompliance with service plans and infrequent or irregular visitation or communication with a child will support a finding of unfitness based on a failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility toward the child. In re Shauntae P., 2012 IL App (1st) 112280, ¶ 90.
¶ 30 Here, we do not find the circuit court's decision regarding unfitness is against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence demonstrated that, from the moment the minors were taken into care until the date of the hearing on the petition, mother failed to demonstrate a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minors' welfare. Almost every service plan rated her unsatisfactory. The caseworkers repeatedly attempted to get her to complete the Integrated Assessment, but she never did. Her attendance at the various court hearings in this case was sporadic, at best. She rarely communicated with the caseworkers and made almost no attempt to see or communicate with the minors or their caregivers. Mother offered no evidence regarding her circumstances that would excuse her failure to communicate or cooperate with her caseworkers or Caritas so that she could visit or communicate with the minors. Accordingly, no meritorious argument can be made that the circuit court's determination that there was clear and convincing evidence mother was unfit based on her failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minors' welfare was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Because a parent may be found unfit if the State proves even one alleged ground of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, we need not consider the other grounds of unfitness alleged in the petition. In re Tiffany M, 353 Ill.App.3d at 891 ("When parental rights are terminated based upon clear and convincing evidence of a single ground of unfitness, the reviewing court need not consider additional grounds for unfitness cited by the trial court.").
¶ 31 We next consider whether any meritorious argument can be made that the circuit court's determination that termination of mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the minors. If the circuit court finds the parent to be unfit, the court must then determine whether it is in the child's best interest that parental rights be terminated. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2018). At this stage, the focus of the court's scrutiny shifts from the rights of the parent to the best interest of the child. In re B.B., 386 Ill.App.3d 686, 697 (2008). To terminate parental rights, the State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the minor's best interest. In re D.T., 212 Ill.2d 347, 366 (2004). When determining whether termination is in the child's best interest, the court must consider, in the context of a child's age and developmental needs, the factors set forth in section 1-3(4.05) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2018)). In re M.C., 2018 IL App (4th) 180144, ¶ 34. A trial court's determination that termination of parental rights is in the child's best interest will not be disturbed on review unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re R.L., 352 Ill.App.3d 985, 1001 (2004).
¶ 32 The evidence demonstrated that the minors had little contact with mother during the over three-year pendency of this case. They were placed together in a loving and stable home, with foster parents that previously adopted two of their siblings. The minors were bonded with their foster parents and the other children in the home. David Hodges testified that he and his wife loved the children and wanted to adopt them. He also testified that he added four bedrooms onto the family home to accommodate the minors. The caseworker supervisor testified that she had no concerns about the minors' placement in the Hodges' home and that none of the caseworkers ever expressed any concern about the placement to her. We agree with appointed counsel that no argument regarding the circuit court's best interest finding can be made.
¶ 33 CONCLUSION
¶ 34 For the foregoing reasons, appointed counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel on appeal is granted, and the judgment of the circuit court of Marion County is affirmed.
¶ 35 Motion granted; judgment affirmed.