Opinion
5-21-0224 5-21-0225
12-15-2021
In re S.A. and R.A., Minors v. R.L.A., 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. 19-JA-78, 19-JA-79 Honorable Ericka A. Sanders, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE WHARTON delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Cates and Vaughan concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
WHARTON JUSTICE.
¶ 1 Held: Where the trial court's orders finding that R.L.A. was an unfit parent and that the best interest of the minor children warranted termination of his parental rights were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, we affirm the orders.
¶ 2 R.L.A. appeals from the trial court's orders finding that he was an unfit parent and that his parental rights should be terminated. We affirm.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 S.A. is a female child born in January 2015. R.A. is a male child born in October 2016. R.L.A. (Father) is the father of both children. Reda A. (Mother) is the mother of both children.
¶ 5 This case began in March 2018 as an intact family services case. The children lived with their parents and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) was providing services to the parents to keep the family together. In March 2018, police made a hotline call to DCFS to advise that they discovered pills and syringes in a vehicle occupied by Father, Mother, S.A., and R.A.
¶ 6 Then, on February 17, 2019, authorities were contacted about two children playing in the street unsupervised. At the time, Father had custody of the children, and Mother was not living with the family. The children were not wearing coats while playing in the street. Authorities approached and asked the children where they lived. Father indicated that he was unaware that the children had left the house, having assumed that they were playing in their room. Due to the time of the call to authorities and their arrival on the scene, the children were playing outside for 20 minutes without supervision. The children were not injured, and at that time there was no history of similar events. Father was not arrested, and the children continued to reside with Father.
¶ 7 Thereafter, on June 25, 2019, both parents, who were on probation for drug charges, were ordered by the probation department to submit to a random drug test. On that date, both parents tested positive for methamphetamines. Father's probation officer told the DCFS caseworker that Father was doing better without the presence of Mother. Father had returned to his "old behaviors" when he resumed his relationship with Mother.
¶ 8 DCFS offered Father a safety plan which included substance abuse services and testing. DCFS informed Father that he had to stay away from Mother. The children were moved in with Father's mother, and then moved again to separately live with two aunts. On July 5, 2019, Father again tested positive for methamphetamine. As a result of this positive drug test, DCFS stepped in to take protective custody of the minor children.
¶ 9 The State filed its petition for adjudication of wardship on July 22, 2019, stating that the minor children were neglected because they were in an environment injurious to their welfare. The State alleged that the environment was injurious to their welfare because the parents were unable to provide appropriate care. In addition to the July 5, 2019, positive drug test for methamphetamine, Father also violated a previously established DCFS safety plan by having continued contact with Mother.
¶ 10 The shelter care hearing was held the next day on July 23, 2019. Neither Father nor Mother appeared in court. Tera Romines, a DCFS investigator, testified that DCFS received a hotline report about both parents testing positive for methamphetamine. Prior to the State's filing of the petition to adjudicate the minors as neglected, DCFS established a safety plan for the children. The children were placed with Father's mother. Father resided in the same house, but his mother would be responsible for supervision of all interactions. On July 1, 2019, this safety plan was modified because DCFS learned that the grandmother had a prior indicated report in January 2019 for inadequate supervision. DCFS then removed the children from the grandmother's home and placed them briefly in separate relative's homes. Then, the children were moved again. At the conclusion of the shelter care hearing, the trial court entered an order awarding temporary custody of the children to the State.
¶ 11 The first service plan was dated August 23, 2019. DCFS, through its agent, Caritas Family Solutions, recommended that Father complete a mental health assessment, a substance abuse assessment, a parenting course, and required Father to obtain adequate housing and employment.
¶ 12 On October 11, 2019, Caritas filed its hearing report with the court. Father had started, but had not completed, a substance abuse assessment. Father tested positive for methamphetamine on September 11, 2019. Father requested in-patient admission to a substance abuse facility in Charleston, Illinois, but Caritas advised that this presented difficulties due to its location in another district. He agreed to participate in local assessment and services. Father reported that he was not able to financially maintain his apartment, and that he planned to move back to live with his mother. Caritas reported concerns raised by the foster parents about the parents' drug usage, as well as missed visitation opportunities. The foster father noted that typically one parent would visit with the children and state that the other parent was "sick." Father complained that the foster parents used corporal punishment to discipline R.A.
¶ 13 The adjudicatory hearing was held on October 30, 2019. Father's probation officer, Grant Arnold, testified at the hearing. Arnold testified about the seven or eight random drug tests he administered to Father. Father tested positive for amphetamines on June 24, 2019, and August 15, 2019, and tested positive for methamphetamine on September 11, 2019.
¶ 14 Carrie Downen, a DCFS high risk intact family services caseworker, testified about her early involvement with the parents and the children. Downen began working with the family in March 2018 when S.A. was three years old and R.A. was one year old. DCFS provided intact family services that included housing services for Father, substance abuse assessments for both parents, and parenting classes for both parents. Downen reported that Father was using the services provided. She testified that the case was subject to an order of supervision that lasted from May 2018 until May 2019. DCFS intended to close the case, but the case remained open due to protective daycare services for the children. Then, after a hotline report that both parents tested positive for methamphetamine, DCFS opened a safety plan for the children, while Downen continued to work with Father on the intact family services plan. She suggested that Father obtain a substance abuse assessment, and she began randomly drug testing him during the month of July 2019. Downen testified that on July 5, 2019, Father tested positive for opiates, methamphetamine, and amphetamines. On July 10, 2019, Father failed to appear for the drug test, which was a presumptive positive test result. On July 15, 2019, Father appeared for the drug test but was incapable of providing an adequate urine sample, which was also a presumptive positive test result.
¶ 15 Tera Romines, a DCFS child protection specialist, was next called to testify by the State. She investigated the June 2019 hotline call DCFS received that reported the parents' positive drug tests for methamphetamine. At that time, S.A. was four years old and R.A. was two years old. Romines went to the parents' home to interview them on June 26, 2019. Father admitted, and eventually Mother admitted, to the use of methamphetamine the morning of June 25, 2019, before reporting to take their drug tests. Romines asked Father if he wanted to comply with the DCFS safety plan. Father would need to complete a substance abuse assessment, submit to random drug tests, and keep the children away from Mother. Father agreed. The children were then temporarily placed with Father's mother. Romines testified that the situation changed when Father tested positive for drugs on July 5, 2019, and then did not show for subsequent drug tests. The children were moved from the temporary placement with their paternal grandmother. Each child was separately placed with a biological aunt on July 1, 2019, but the aunts informed DCFS that they could no longer keep the children because of Father's "constant manipulation." Romines testified that because Father was not showing progress on his DCFS safety plan and because there was not a safe familial placement, DCFS took protective custody of the children on July 19, 2019. Romines explained that even though Father had tested positive for drugs, DCFS was trying to give him a chance, and she noted that the children were not then in his custody.
¶ 16 The court entered its adjudicatory order immediately following the hearing. The court found that the children were neglected because they were in an environment that was injurious to their welfare. The court concluded that the injurious environment was the parents' use of methamphetamine while caring for the children.
¶ 17 On November 25, 2019, Caritas filed its dispositional report with the trial court. S.A. and R.A. had recently been moved from a fictive kin placement to a traditional foster placement due to a hotline call regarding R.A. and a facial bruise in a suspected shape of a handprint. Father was then residing at Gateway Foundation in Caseyville where he was engaged in substance abuse treatment. The caseworker noted that Father needed to continue with mental health counseling and parenting classes, in addition to maintaining his sobriety upon release from Gateway. Father informed the caseworker that he was no longer going to be living in his own apartment due to finances, but upon release from Gateway, he would begin the search for appropriate housing. Caritas brought the children to have visitation with Father at Gateway.
¶ 18 On November 27, 2019, the trial court held its dispositional hearing. Father stipulated to maintain guardianship and custody with DCFS. Father had just been released from substance abuse rehabilitation and was working to get "back on track" with his service plan. He was living with his mother. The court reminded Father that he would need to comply with his service plan objectives but noted his progress. The court entered its dispositional order finding that it was in the minor children's best interest, as well as consistent with the children's health, welfare, and safety, to make the children wards of the court. Father was found to be unable to care for the children. The court reserved the matter of DCFS's reasonable efforts because of issues noted in the reports about S.A. and possible allegations of sexual contact with her paternal grandfather, and other sexual behaviors that a specialist found to be normative. The court was also concerned about the bruise on R.A.'s face and asked about whether or not the incident had been investigated.
¶ 19 On January 6, 2020, Caritas filed a status report. Father was supposed to be participating in a Centralia-based substance abuse group, as well as individual counseling. Father did not attend four scheduled substance abuse group sessions in December 2019 and January 2020. He participated in an individual substance abuse counseling session on December 3, 2019. Father had not begun parenting services. Father's visitation with the children was going well, but he struggled with compliance with Caritas rules in contacting a confirmation line prior to the scheduled visits. Father informed his caseworker that he had successfully rented a home, but Caritas had not yet inspected the property. Caritas updated the court on the sexual allegations involving S.A. DCFS investigated the reports about S.A.'s paternal grandfather and determined that her allegations were unfounded. Caritas reported that the possible handprint bruise on R.A.'s face was timely reported to the Benld Police Department.
¶ 20 During the court's January 8, 2020, status hearing, the court was notified that Father and Mother had resumed living together. Father told the court that a Caritas provider informed him that he did not need to do parenting classes because he had completed a similar class while in rehab at Gateway. The court reminded Father that if he was going to miss a scheduled group or individual counseling session, he needed to call in and advise Caritas that he would not be attending. The guardian ad litem (GAL) for the children expressed her concerns about S.A.'s reported behaviors and the need for counseling. The court concurred indicating that the need for counseling was immediate. At the conclusion of the hearing, the GAL asked the trial court to order Father and Mother to take a random drug test that date. The court verbally ordered the parents to submit to the drug test. The record does not contain the results of these tests.
¶ 21 Caritas created a family service plan dated January 22, 2020. The plan covered the period from July 23, 2019, to July 22, 2020. Father completed residential substance abuse treatment on November 25, 2019, and provided Caritas with documentation. He also completed a substance abuse assessment at the Community Resource Center in Centralia and was recommended to participate in individual and group substance abuse counseling. Father had begun individual substance abuse counseling, but as of the date of the service plan, Father had not participated in any substance abuse group sessions. Father had rented a house, and Mother lived with him. Caritas had not yet evaluated the house. Father had not engaged in parenting services. Caritas provided Father with an overall unsatisfactory rating on his service plan. Father's service plan action steps were as follows:
(1) agrees to meet with the caseworker to complete his portion of the integrated assessment;
(2) agrees to provide and maintain safe electrical outlets, wiring, heating, sanitary plumbing, water, and toilet facilities in the home at all times;
(3) agrees to maintain an acceptable level of cleanliness in the home at all times;
(4) agrees to keep all the utilities turned on in the home and provide proof of payment when the worker requests it;
(5) agrees to provide and maintain adequate furniture and room space for the family, particularly bedding and sleeping arrangements;
(6) agrees to keep all medications, cleaning supplies, and potentially harmful products out of reach of children;
(7) agrees to provide the worker of documentation on a monthly basis of legal income (disability included);
(8) agrees to complete a substance abuse assessment;
(9) agrees to follow any and all recommendations made during the substance abuse assessment;
(10) agrees to cooperate with any urine, blood, or hair follicle tests requested by DCFS and that all drug test results must be negative;
(11) agrees to complete a mental health assessment;
(12) agrees to cooperate with any recommendations made as a result of the mental health assessment;
(13) agrees to successfully complete parenting classes;
(14) agrees to demonstrate what he has learned in parenting classes on an ongoing basis during interactions with his children; and
(15) agrees to use removal of privileges, time out, and grounding when disciplining children.
Father successfully completed his portion of the integrated assessment, and successfully completed the requirements to obtain a substance abuse assessment and a mental health assessment. Caritas rated all other service plan objectives as unsatisfactory.
¶ 22 On April 13, 2020, Caritas filed its permanency hearing report with the court. Caritas rated Father's progress on his service plan objectives as unsatisfactory: appropriate housing, documentation of legal income, following recommendations from the substance abuse and mental health assessments, and completing a parenting program. Father called and cancelled his participation in three January 2020 group substance abuse counseling sessions and failed to call and cancel or attend two more sessions in late January and early February 2020. Similarly, Father cancelled two individual substance abuse counseling appointments, and did not show for a third appointment in January 2020. Father then attended his February 18, 2020, individual appointment, but canceled his next two appointments. Father continued to claim that he had no need to participate in parenting classes, but he had not provided documentation of his completion of a parenting program at Gateway. Father was living in a rental house in Centralia that he reported needed "a lot of work done." For income, Father stated that he was receiving disability benefits, but he had not provided verification of this income source. Father received disability benefits because of numerous spinal surgeries.
¶ 23 On June 16, 2020, Caritas filed its permanency hearing report with the court. Father rescheduled his individual substance abuse counseling appointments in April and May 2020, and he failed to attend a June 2020 appointment. Caritas did not include any information about Father's substance abuse group sessions, or whether he had provided proof of income or completion of parenting classes. He submitted to a random drug test on May 18, 2020, and the results were positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine.
¶ 24 On June 24, 2020, the court held its permanency hearing. Father spoke to the court stating that his mental health counselor indicated that he was ready to have the children back in his home. The GAL raised concerns about the completeness of the Caritas report, inquiring about Father's positive drug test and whether he was attending any form of substance abuse counseling. The GAL emphasized that neither parent was making significant progress toward the goal of returning the children home. The foster mother informed the court that she felt that the children were making progress, but that during the first 45 days, both children were angry and out of control. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court entered its order that the permanency goal remained to return the children home and set the case for an additional permanency hearing in three months.
¶ 25 Caritas filed its next family service plan with the court on July 23, 2020. This service plan covered the period from January 2020 to July 9, 2020. Caritas found that Father had not made progress on his service plan. His substance abuse counselor reported that Father was inconsistent with his appointments. Father informed his counselor that he was not using drugs. However, Father tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine on February 11, 2020, and May 18, 2020. Caritas intended to enroll Father in parenting classes. Father lived in a two-bedroom home in Centralia, and he received monthly disability benefits for income. Father's service plan action steps were identical to the previous service plan except Caritas removed the step of completing his portion of the integrated assessment. Caritas rated Father's progress as satisfactory in having both a mental health assessment and a substance abuse assessment, but rated Father unsatisfactory on all other action steps. Although Caritas rated Father unsatisfactory on the housing action steps, we note that the ratings were unsatisfactory not based on substantive issues with the house, but because Caritas had not yet scheduled an inspection.
¶ 26 Caritas filed a status hearing report with the court on September 14, 2020. Father continued to be inconsistent with counseling sessions. He did not appear for a scheduled random drug test on August 6, 2020. He also appeared for a test on September 2, 2020, but did not bring a form of identification with him, and so the testing facility did not allow him to take the test. Caritas inspected Father's home and found no issues except for a broken window, which Father referred to the property owner for repair. Caritas scheduled Father to begin parenting classes with the next group session. Father was participating in weekly visits with his children.
¶ 27 The trial court held its next status hearing on September 30, 2020. The GAL stated that the parents were not making adequate progress and that the children had spent most of their lives in foster care. She stated that Father continued to be inconsistent with counseling, and that the case was not progressing. The GAL asked the foster mother to provide insight about the behavior of the children before and after visits with the parents. Both children exhibited negative behaviors after some of the visits. S.A. also exhibited negative behaviors before the visits. Both children began engaging in "potty talk." S.A. began exhibiting sexualized behaviors and wetting her pants and the bed. The GAL asked Caritas to provide visitation notes at the next hearing. She also suggested to the State that the children deserved permanency. The Caritas caseworker informed the court that the agency was preparing the paperwork for legal screening to move the case forward.
¶ 28 On November 18, 2020, Caritas filed a permanency hearing report with the court. Father continued to be inconsistent with his counseling appointments. He indicated that he believed his physician would provide him with a medical marijuana card. He acknowledged that his counselor informed him that marijuana was just as bad as methamphetamine, but Father contended that using marijuana curbed his cravings for methamphetamine. Father appeared for a drug test on October 26, 2020, but again did not bring identification with him, and the agency would not allow him to take the test. Caritas treated the incomplete test as a presumptive positive. Father's substance abuse counselor indicated that Father had regressed in his progress as evidenced by his positive drug test results. Father was participating in online parenting classes. He had missed one class and had not turned in homework assignments. Father had weekly visits with the children that were going well. Caritas requested that the permanency goal remain the same-to return the children to the parents within 12 months.
¶ 29 On December 2, 2020, Caritas filed an addendum to its November 18, 2020, permanency report. On November 19, 2020, the case passed legal screening, and Caritas asked the court to change the goal to substitute care pending court determination on termination of parental rights. That same date, the court held a hearing. Father's attorney indicated that he was inconsistent with counseling appointments because of transportation issues and difficulty in walking long distances because of his physical disabilities. The foster mother provided information about behaviors exhibited by both children after in-person visits resumed with the parents, and referred to R.A. as "a very sad, broken little boy." The court then, on its own motion, suspended visits with the parents, noting that Caritas should have provided the court and/or the GAL with this information. The court continued the case for two weeks to obtain additional information.
¶ 30 On December 14, 2020, Caritas filed an addendum report with the court. In this report, Caritas noted that it was referring Father for mental health counseling with a separate provider than with his substance abuse counselor. The agency providing online parenting classes discharged Father from the program due to absenteeism. DCFS made a hotline report of possible sexual abuse of both children by Father's father. However, DCFS was unable to obtain details of any sexual abuse after interviewing S.A. S.A. spoke of "Santa" as the perpetrator, but identified Santa as her grandfather, her Father, and her uncle. DCFS was attempting to locate and interview the grandfather. S.A. claimed that her grandfather was deceased. Both children denied having their private areas touched. S.A. indicated that her Father had punished her with a belt. He had also used a "bad touch" when cleaning her after she had "pooped her pants."
¶ 31 On December 15, 2020, the State filed its petition to terminate Father's parental rights. The State alleged that Father was an unfit parent for failing to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility to the minors' welfare (750 ILCS 50/1 (D)(b) (West 2018)); for failing to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the minor children during any nine-month period following the adjudication of the minors' neglect, specifically between October 31, 2019, to July 31, 2020, and between December 31, 2019, to September 30, 2020 (id. § 1(D) (m)(i)); and that he has failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor children during any nine-month period following the adjudication of the minors' neglect, specifically between October 31, 2019, to July 31, 2020, and between December 31, 2019, to September 30, 2020 (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)).
¶ 32 On December 30, 2020, Father filed a motion asking the trial court to reconsider its order suspending visitation. Father argued that his due process rights had been violated because there was no formal motion to suspend the visits, and thus, he was unable to properly defend against the motion.
¶ 33 On January 6, 2021, Caritas filed its permanency hearing report with the court. Caritas reported that Father's two drug tests taken on November 16, 2020, and December 10, 2020, were negative. With visitation suspended, the children's behavior had improved. Overall, Caritas rated Father's progress as unsatisfactory and asked the court to change the permanency goal to substitute care pending termination of parental rights.
¶ 34 On January 20, 2021, the trial court held its status hearing. Father was not present at this hearing because he was in jail after the police arrested him on a warrant related to a 2018 petition to revoke probation. The court denied Father's motion to reconsider its order suspending visitation. On January 25, 2020, the court changed its permanency goal to substitute care pending termination of parental rights.
¶ 35 On March 23, 2021, Caritas filed its termination hearing report with the court. The Centralia facility providing Father with substance abuse resources "closed him out" of the program for missing too many appointments. He failed to appear for drug tests on January 21, 2021, and on February 23, 2021. DCFS conducted its investigation of the sexual abuse concerns and found that the allegations were unfounded. DCFS stated that there was no credible evidence that an incident occurred.
¶ 36 On April 7, 2021, the trial court was scheduled to hold the fitness hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, Mother's attorney advised the court that her client was willing to formally surrender her parental rights. Mother signed the surrender papers during the hearing. The State asked to continue the hearing because it needed to call additional witnesses to testify at the hearing. Over Father's objection, the trial court granted the motion to continue.
¶ 37 Caritas filed a termination hearing report with the court on May 3, 2021. The caseworker met with Father at his mother's house in April 2021. He asked the caseworker to deliver Easter baskets and teddy bears to his children. Caritas reported that Father had been closed out of substance abuse and mental health services through the Centralia facility due to poor attendance. Father was scheduled for an assessment at a different facility in late May 2021. He failed to appear for a random drug test on April 23, 2021. Father's probation officer informed Caritas that he was not compliant because he missed appointments. Father was scheduled to begin parenting classes in January 2021 at the Centralia facility, but he missed the first session and was dropped from the program. The foster parents reported that S.A. began exhibiting behaviors after the Caritas caseworker delivered the Easter gifts from Father.
¶ 38 The trial court held the fitness hearing on May 17, 2021. Leigh Dickey testified that she was employed by Caritas as a supervisor of supervisors and caseworkers. She supervised Sarah Chamness, who Caritas assigned to work on the case involving S.A. and R.A. Dickey testified generally about service plans, noting that Caritas creates service plans at a minimum of every six months. Caritas provides a copy of each service plan to the parent. Dickey identified a service plan prepared by Sarah Chamness and dated January 29, 2020. Dickey testified that the service plan contained ratings of the parents' progress.
¶ 39 Lindsey Summers testified that she was employed by Caritas as a foster care case manager. She stated that she had been the case manager for S.A. and R.A. since June 2020. Summers testified that this case began as an intact family services case but was modified when the parents both tested positive for methamphetamine. As a case manager, Summers testified that she had prepared a service plan for Father dated July 9, 2020. The service plan covered January 2020 to July 2020. Summers testified that Caritas expected Father to participate in services involving mental health, substance abuse, and parenting. Additionally, she indicated that Father was to maintain adequate housing and income. Caritas rated Father's progress for that period as unsatisfactory because he had not completed services and was inconsistent with his mental health and substance abuse appointments. Summers stated that Father had not offered to show her his rented house, and she had not had an opportunity to evaluate the property during that service plan period. She testified that Father claimed to receive disability income monthly, but she never received documentation of his disability benefits. Summers testified that during this service period, Father tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine on February 11, 2020, and May 18, 2020.
¶ 40 Summers testified that she also prepared the next service plan in January 2021, based on Father's progress between July 2020 and January 2021. She testified that she evaluated and approved Father's rented house in October 2020, but stated that in March or April 2021, he had moved. Father had two hours of supervised visitation with his children every week until December 2020 when the trial court suspended all visits.
¶ 41 On cross-examination by Father's attorney, Summers admitted that she may have evaluated Father's rented house in July 2020. She confirmed that the only problem was a broken window. She testified that she had not received documentation of Father's disability benefits, but that disability benefits would satisfy the income requirement. Summers stated that Father's last positive drug test for amphetamines and methamphetamine was in May 2020. Summers confirmed that Father had complained about spinal issues and difficulty with bus transportation for services but testified that, at that time, a bus pass was the only transportation that Caritas could provide.
¶ 42 On cross-examination by the GAL, Summers testified that S.A. and R.A. were previously involved in the juvenile court system. She confirmed that although Father had completed parenting classes, those classes were part of an earlier juvenile court case. Summers testified that Father failed to appear for drug tests on three occasions in 2021: January 21, February 23, and April 23. She stated that Father was currently on probation and was noncompliant in that process.
¶ 43 Father testified that he was then 55 years old. He moved in with his mother in February 2021 to assist her after she had knee replacement surgery. His only source of income was disability benefits. He had been receiving these benefits for approximately four years. He testified that he had the paperwork to prove his benefits.
¶ 44 Father testified that he was drug free. He testified about his missed drug tests. In the past, DCFS provided "rides" to and from visitation and to services, including random drug testing. More recently, they provided a bus pass. When this case began, the drug testing facility was approximately five blocks from his house. Then, DCFS changed the location for random drug tests to Mt. Vernon. Father said that DCFS allowed one to two hours from the moment of notification, to travel to the drug testing facility for the random drug test. Father testified that he did not have a driver's license, and that it was difficult "to get somebody to drop something they are doing in the middle of the day to drive me to Mount Vernon to take a drug test."
¶ 45 Father testified that he completed a parenting class in the spring of 2016, the first time that DCFS removed S.A. from the home. He testified that he completed a second parenting class in 2018. Additionally, he took parenting classes when he was inpatient at Gateway for substance abuse rehabilitation. The woman who worked with Father at Gateway indicated that Gateway's parenting program was accepted by the Madison County-based DCFS providers.
¶ 46 Father testified that DCFS removed his children from his care because he "flunked a drug test." He argued that his parenting was not the issue. Further, he stated that he had not failed a drug test in over one year. Father testified that he did not receive bus passes until November 2020, but that he was not able to use the bus service because the pickup location was a couple of miles from his home. Because of his physical disabilities, he testified that he was unable to walk that distance. Father testified that he discussed this issue with caseworker Summers who stated that one way or the other, he needed to get to these appointments. He believed that DCFS was not offering car service for transportation because of Covid-19 concerns.
¶ 47 The State argued that the court could construe Father's failure to consistently engage in services, and his continued issues with substance abuse, as a failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility. Additionally, Father's continued battle with substance abuse and his failure to consistently engage in related services was a failure to make reasonable efforts to correct the substance abuse condition that resulted in the removal of his children, and a failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of his children.
¶ 48 In response, Father's attorney argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility about the children. Father had testified that he only missed a few supervised weekly visits with his children. Father's attorney also urged the court to focus on Father's effort, and not necessarily on his success, in correcting his substance abuse problem that resulted in the removal of the children. She urged the court to consider the difficult circumstances that Father encountered in his effort to comply. Father's attorney also argued that he had made reasonable progress on his service plan in that he had adequate housing and income and he maintained regular visitation. She argued that a lack of paperwork confirming his disability benefits should not be sufficient to show that he failed to make progress. She argued that the transportation obstacles and short notice to present for drug tests should not obliterate the numerous random drug tests he took. She contended that the State based its argument that Father was not making progress on his May 18, 2020, positive drug test, and argued that one positive test result should not be sufficient to establish a lack of satisfactory progress.
¶ 49 The GAL argued that Father was inconsistent with mental health and substance abuse services. She noted that the children had been in protective custody for approximately two years by the date of the fitness hearing. She asked the court to find that the State had met its burden and find that Father is unfit.
¶ 50 The court concluded that the State failed to establish that Father did not maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for his children. Although the two nine-month periods used by the State were overlapping, the court concluded that the State established that Father was unfit because he had not made reasonable efforts or progress. The court noted that while Father likely had disability income and may have completed parenting classes, it was his burden to provide that documentation to his caseworker, and he failed to do so. Further, Father failed to stay fully engaged in the services provided to him by DCFS-services that could have helped him to remain clean and sober.
¶ 51 On July 14, 2021, Caritas filed its best interest report with the court. The foster mother informed Caritas that S.A. continued to struggle with behaviors. She was continuing to receive trauma-based mental health counseling and was working on various coping mechanisms. She completed kindergarten in Effingham and did very well in school. R.A. also struggled with various violent behaviors and was in trauma-based mental health counseling. R.A. had recently begun occupational therapy to help him manage his anger and reflexes to prevent him from hitting behaviors. R.A. had just completed a year of preschool and had done well.
¶ 52 On July 28, 2021, the trial court held the best interest hearing. Caritas caseworker, Summers, testified that she had been the assigned caseworker since June 2020. S.A. and R.A. had been living together with a traditional foster family since March 2020. She testified that S.A. was then six years old and R.A. was four years old. Summers visits the foster family and the children once per month. She testified that S.A. and R.A. each have their own bedroom, and that the house is safe and suitable. She stated that the children have a strong bond with their foster parents. Summers testified that she had no concerns about the children continuing to reside with this foster family. The foster parents informed Summers of their intention to adopt the children. Summers testified that each time she visited the children, she spoke with them to confirm that they felt safe and happy in their home environment. She acknowledged that the children were still expressing their emotions with behavioral outbursts, and that these behaviors occurred both while Father exercised his visitation privileges and after the court disallowed visitation in December 2020. Summers testified that the behavioral issues would eventually subside with the mental health therapy that each child was receiving.
¶ 53 Shannon H., the foster mother, testified that she loved S.A. and R.A., and that her extended family had welcomed the children. She testified that she was in good health, was employed, and was financially able to continue to care for the children. Shannon testified that there was nothing about the children's medical or developmental needs that would prevent her from continuing to care for them. She indicated that she wanted to adopt the children. Shannon acknowledged that the children occasionally made comments about missing their Father. Despite the behaviors, Shannon was resolved to provide the children with the best care. She testified that R.A. had recently begun Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy to help him recover from trauma.
¶ 54 Christopher H., the foster father, testified that he had become attached to and loved S.A. and R.A. He expressed his intent to adopt the children. Christopher stated that he and Shannon had the finances to provide for the children.
¶ 55 Father testified that he had lived for the past year with his mother in Centralia. Father explained his daily involvement with the children when they lived with him. When they were in "school," S.A. would finish first and he took her to the library to check out a couple of books, and then head back to pick up R.A. Father testified about taking the children to the park and playing various games with them. He stated that he had never seen either child display the behaviors that the foster mother identified in her testimony. Further, he noted that the school had not reported any sort of behavioral issues. Father testified that he loved his children and that the home he shared with his mother was safe and large enough to accommodate the children.
¶ 56 At the conclusion of the testimony, the GAL recommended that the trial court terminate Father's parental rights. She stated that she had no doubt that Father loved the children, but that the best interest of the children dictated termination of his rights. The State recommended the same outcome, noting that the children had lived with their foster parents for 18 months.
¶ 57 Father's attorney asked the court to consider Father's rehabilitation and desire and ability to be a parent to his children. She argued that Father remained in services and had an income and a safe home. Although the children's behaviors are concerning, Father's attorney argued that the behaviors continued after his visits were suspended. She suggested that the trauma the children were experiencing could be directly connected to their separation from their Father.
¶ 58 The trial court stated that the children had spent half of their lives in the foster care system. The court acknowledged that being removed from their home was traumatic, but also stated that dealing with their parents' addictions was a likely source of trauma. The court found that the children were in a foster home that was "dedicated to providing the intensity of services and care that they need." Despite the behavioral issues, the court stated that the foster parents were dedicated to making sure that the children felt loved and safe. The court found that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate Father's parental rights.
¶ 59 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 60 On appeal, Father argues that the trial court's orders that he was an unfit parent and that his parental rights should be terminated were erroneous.
¶ 61 Section 2-29 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 provides the procedural basis for the involuntary termination of parental rights. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2018). The procedure involves two steps. With step one, the State must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is unfit as defined by the Adoption Act. Id.; 750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2018); In re A.J., 269 Ill.App.3d 824, 828 (1994). If the trial court finds that the parent is unfit, the process moves to step two. With step two, the State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is in the child's best interest that the parent's rights be terminated. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2018); In re J.L., 236 Ill.2d 329, 337-38 (2010).
¶ 62 On appeal from a trial court's findings that a parent is unfit and that terminating the parental rights is in the child's best interest, the reviewing court must not retry the case but, instead, must review the trial court's findings to determine if the findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re A.W., 231 Ill.2d 92, 104 (2008). A decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is apparent or when findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented. In re Vanessa K, 2011 IL App (3d) 100545, ¶ 28 (citing In re Joseph M., 398 Ill.App.3d 1086, 1089 (2010)); In re S.R., 326 Ill.App.3d 356, 360-61 (2001).
¶ 63 We first review the evidence to determine if the State met its burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father was an "unfit person." The trial court determined that the State met its burden of proof that Father failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the children during any nine-month period following the court's adjudication that the minors were neglected, specifically from October 31, 2019, to July 31, 2020, and from December 31, 2019, to September 30, 2020. The trial court also determined that the State met its burden of proof that Father failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the children during any nine-month period following the court's adjudication that the minors were neglected, for the same two nine-month periods. ¶ 64 "Reasonable effort" is determined by a subjective standard that refers to the amount of effort which is reasonable for that parent. In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill.App.3d 1052, 1066-67 (2006). The court must determine whether the parent has made committed and diligent efforts toward correcting the conditions that led to the removal of the minor from the home. In re L.J.S., 2018 IL App (3d) 180218, ¶ 24.
¶ 65 Here, the State argued that Father did not make reasonable efforts during the two overlapping nine-month periods. The 11-month time frame began on October 31, 2019, and ended on September 30, 2020. The conditions that resulted in the removal of Father's children involved substance abuse. During those 11 months, Father completed a 21-day residential substance abuse rehabilitation program. Father completed a substance abuse assessment that mandated both individual and group counseling sessions, as well as random drug tests. However, Father did not consistently attend his individual substance abuse counseling appointments during this 11-month period, or at any time during this case. Furthermore, he never attended group substance abuse counseling sessions. Because of his substance abuse issues, Father was ordered to participate in parenting classes. While Father had previously completed two parenting classes in earlier DCFS cases involving S.A., he never completed parenting classes during this case. We believe that Father may have completed a program of limited duration while he was in rehab at Gateway, but he never provided verification of his participation to his caseworker. At one point, when Father moved into his rental house, he allowed Mother to move in with him. As Mother continued to struggle with substance abuse, his involvement with her did not serve to establish reasonable efforts. Finally, on February 11, 2020, and on May 18, 2020, Father tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine. He failed to take a drug test on August 6, 2020, and on September 2, 2020, and those missed drug tests were treated as presumptively positive results. While Father made some effort, we cannot find that he made the required "reasonable efforts" to correct the substance abuse conditions that resulted in the removal of his children.
¶ 66 We next address the court's finding that Father had also not made reasonable progress toward the return of the children. "Reasonable progress" is determined by an objective standard, based upon the amount of progress measured from the conditions existing at the time custody was taken from the parent. In re D.T., 2017 IL App (3d) 170120, ¶ 17 (citing In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill.App.3d at 1067). "The benchmark for measuring a parent's reasonable progress under section 1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act encompasses the parent's compliance with the service plans and court's directives in light of the condition that gave rise to the removal of the child and other conditions which later become known that would prevent the court from returning custody of the child to the parent." Id. (citing In re C.N., 196 Ill.2d 181, 216-17 (2001)). A parent makes reasonable progress when the trial court can find that the progress "is sufficiently demonstrable and of such a quality" that the trial court may soon be able to order the return of the minor to the parent's custody. Id. (citing In re J.H., 2014 IL App (3d) 140185, ¶ 22).
¶ 67 In this case, Father made progress on housing. He rented a small house in Centralia that ultimately received Caritas's approval. While initially, Mother was also living there, at some point, she moved out. However, by the time that the court held the fitness hearing, Father had moved back home to live with his mother because she needed assistance after a knee replacement surgery. Caritas reviewed that home setting and found that it too was adequate. Father seemingly made progress on the requirement that he have a steady income because of his disability benefits. However, he never provided his Caritas caseworker with the requested documentation. Month after month, and in every court report, Caritas stated that Father had not provided documentary proof of income. Similarly, as noted above, Father failed to provide documentation to establish that he had completed a parenting program. He started two parenting programs during this case but was ejected from both programs because he missed classes. Father also was inconsistent with substance abuse individual counseling. He had a good relationship with his counselor but had a consistent pattern of missing appointments. He never participated in mandatory group substance abuse counseling sessions. Additionally, Father continued to test positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines, and failed to take other required drug tests.
¶ 68 While we understand the transportation difficulties Father encountered, Father was aware of the importance of completion of his service plan objectives. We note that this was not the first time that DCFS was involved with Father. Based upon this experience, Father knew what he needed to accomplish to establish reasonable progress. The facts of this case do not support the reasonable progress standard.
¶ 69 We find that the trial court fully considered the evidence in the record and at the fitness hearing. We conclude that the trial court's finding that Father was an "unfit person" was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re A. W., 231 Ill.2d at 104. ¶ 70 In reaching this conclusion, affirming the trial court's finding that Father was unfit, we want to briefly comment on the transportation services made available to Father in this case. We are troubled by the lack of flexibility in transportation services DCFS provided to Father to encourage compliance with his service plan objectives. The discontinuation of the car service made compliance much more difficult due to Father's physical disabilities. While we are aware that a portion of this case took place during the Covid-19 pandemic, we are concerned that transportation resources were so limited. Furthermore, changing the drug testing site from Centralia in Marion County to Mt. Vernon in Jefferson County-approximately 27 to 28 miles by vehicle-exacerbated the transportation issues in this case, when DCFS only provided a bus pass for transportation assistance. We make these statements with the caveat that this court can only review the cold record on appeal and recognize that the trial court was in the best position to evaluate the evidence and the witnesses appearing in court. Despite the transportation issues, we affirm the trial court's order finding that Father was unfit.
¶ 71 Having determined that the trial court correctly found that Father was an unfit parent, we turn to the best interest of S.A. and R.A. Termination of a parent's rights is an extreme act. In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill.2d 255, 274-75 (1990). A parent maintains a superior right to raise his or her own children. Id. Once a parent has been determined to be unfit, "the parent's rights must yield to the child's best interest." In re Tashika F., 333 Ill.App.3d 165, 170 (2002); In re J.L., 236 Ill.2d 329, 337-38 (2010). Until the court determines that a parent is unfit, the interests of both the parent and the child are concurrent "to the extent that they both 'share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.'" In re D.T., 212 Ill.2d 347, 363 (2004) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760-61 (1982)).
¶ 72 After finding that a parent is unfit, the State must establish proof that termination of a parent's rights is in the child's best interest by a preponderance of the evidence. 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2018); In re D.T., 212 Ill.2d at 366. On appeal of a best-interest determination, we must decide whether the trial court's decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Jay. H., 395 Ill.App.3d 1063, 1071 (2009); In re S.J., 368 Ill.App.3d 749, 755 (2006). A best-interest determination is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the facts clearly demonstrate that the court should have reached the opposite result. In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill.App.3d at 1072. On appeal from an order terminating a parent's rights, the reviewing court gives great deference to the trial court's decision because the trial court is in a much better position to see the witnesses and judge their credibility. In re KB., 314 Ill.App.3d 739, 748 (2000).
¶ 73 "[A]t a best-interest[ ] hearing, the parent's interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship must yield to the child's interest in a stable, loving home life." In re D.T., 212 Ill.2d at 364. The trial court must consider several factors within "the context of the child's age and developmental needs" when considering if termination of parental rights serves a child's best interest. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2018). These factors include:
"(a) the physical safety and welfare of the child, including food, shelter, health, and clothing;
(b) the development of the child's identity;
(c) the child's background and ties, including familial, cultural, and religious;
(d) the child's sense of attachments, including:
(i) where the child actually feels love, attachment, and a sense of being valued (as opposed to where adults believe the child should feel such love, attachment, and a sense of being valued);
(ii) the child's sense of security;
(iii) the child's sense of familiarity;
(iv) continuity of affection for the child;
(v) the least disruptive placement alternative for the child;
(e) the child's wishes and long-term goals;
(f) the child's community ties, including church, school, and friends;
(g) the child's need for permanence which includes the child's need for stability and continuity of relationships with parent figures and with siblings and other relatives;
(h) the uniqueness of every family and child;
(i) the risks attendant to entering and being in substitute care; and
(j) the preferences of the persons available to care for the child." Id.
¶ 74 In the court's July 28, 2021, order, the trial court did not specifically identify which factors it considered in concluding that the minor children's best interest would be served by termination of Father's parental rights. However, the trial court's ultimate determination and order does not need to reference and discuss each factor. In re Tajannah O., 2014 IL App (1st) 133119, ¶ 19; In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill.App.3d 883, 893 (2004). The trial court may consider the likelihood of adoption. In re Tashika F., 333 Ill.App.3d at 170. The court can also consider the length of the child's relationship with his or her foster parents and the emotional and/or physical effect of a change of placement on the well-being of the child. In re Brandon A., 395 Ill.App.3d 224, 240 (2009) (citing In re Austin W., 214 Ill.2d 31, 50 (2005)). The court is not required to consider each factor individually in determining the best interest of the child. Here, the court referenced the trauma the children experienced. The court recognized the dedication of the foster parents to ensure that the children felt loved and safe and received ample services to address the trauma-based behavioral issues. The court also noted that the foster parents intended to adopt the children to provide stability and permanence.
¶ 75 In this case, the record clearly reflects that termination of Father's parental rights was the appropriate outcome for S.A. and R.A. By the date of the best interest hearing, the children had been in foster care for more than two years. The children were together with the same foster family for the last 18 months. The children were excelling in school. The children were safe and being provided with multiple treatments to help process the trauma they experienced. ¶ 76 The caseworker, the foster parents, and Father testified at the best interest hearing. The trial judge was able to watch the witnesses as they testified and to make judgments as to each witness's credibility. Both foster parents testified that they loved the children and intended to adopt them if allowed by the court. Although we recognize Father's love for his children, we conclude that the trial court's decision to terminate Father's parental rights was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In re D.F., 201 Ill.2d 476, 498-99 (2002).
¶ 77 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 78 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Marion County.
¶ 79 Affirmed.