Opinion
1-23-1905
06-28-2024
IN THE INTEREST OF Z.G., K.G., and A.G., minors v. S.W., 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 Cook County. Case Nos. 2020JA00371, 2020JA00623, 2021JA00105 Honorable Lisa Taylor, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE C.A. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hyman and Tailor concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
C.A. WALKER JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: We affirm the circuit court's judgment where the court's finding of unfitness was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the court had statutory authority to order the State to file the petition to terminate parental rights to conform with the permanency goal of substitute care pending termination of parental rights.
¶ 2 Respondent-Appellant S.W. appeals from the circuit court's order finding her to be an unfit parent under section 1(D)(b) and section 1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b), (m) (West 2022)) and terminating her parental rights over Z.G., K.G., and A.G., her minor children. Respondent argues (1) the court's finding of unfitness was against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) the court erred in ordering the State to file a petition to terminate parental rights. For the following reasons, we affirm the circuit court's judgment.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 Respondent is the natural mother of the three minors at issue: Z.G. born May 17, 2018; K.G. born April 8, 2020; and A.G. born February 8, 2021. The State filed three petitions for adjudication of wardship for each minor. The petitions alleged that the minors were neglected in that they were denied necessary care and exposed to an environment injurious to their welfare and abused in that they were placed at a substantial risk of injury. The facts supporting the allegations are substantially similar in each of the petitions. For the sake of brevity, we detail the supporting facts in the latest petition concerning A.G. The facts are as follows:
"Mother and putative father have prior indicated reports for substantial risk of physical injury/environment injurious to health and welfare and environmental neglect. Mother and father have two other children in temporary custody of [Department of Children &Family Services (DCFS)]. Mother and putative father have a history of domestic violence. On February 23, 2020, law enforcement responded to a report of domestic violence at the parents' home. Law enforcement observed mother with an injury to the hand that was bleeding. Mother reported that she and putative father were arguing, and he struck her head against the wall. Mother reported she struck putative father in self-defense. Putative father was arrested. Mother became agitated after putative father's arrest and was observed to pick up this minor's one-year old sibling[, Z.G.,] and throw her four to five feet onto a
mattress. Mother was then placed under arrest. Mother was pregnant with this minor's other sibling[, K.G.,] at the time of this incident. Mother has previous mental health diagnoses. Mother and putative father have been assessed in need of substance abuse, parenting, domestic violence and mental health services to aid in reunification with minor's siblings. Services are ongoing at this time and their contact with minor's siblings is currently limited to supervised visits. Paternity has not been established."
¶ 5 On May 13, 2022, the case proceeded to an adjudication hearing. At the close of the hearing, Judge Bernard Sarley adjudicated that Z.G. was neglected and abused and K.G. and A.G. were neglected. The court then placed the minors in custody of DCFS guardianship. On December 9, 2022, Judge Sybil Thomas ordered the agency to place respondent in parenting coaching within 30 days. In so ruling, Judge Thomas stated the notes from Judge Sarley provided it was in respondent's best interest to complete parenting coaching before she was referred for a clinical evaluation and that she was putting "another order in place, as Judge Sarley did." On February 15, 2023, the case appeared before Judge Maxwell Griffin. Judge Griffin stated that the case was set for permanency planning. The assistant public defender questioned the status of the case, believing it was continued from the December 9 court date to see how respondent was doing in parenting coaching. Judge Griffin also stated that he would get the status on the services to determine whether to complete a full permanency hearing or continue the case for a clinical evaluation.
¶ 6 Judge Griffin went on to hear several witnesses' testimony. Teandra Armstrong testified that she was assigned as the minors' caseworker on June 28, 2022. At that time, the agency recommended respondent participate in parenting class, domestic violence assessment and treatment, substance abuse assessment and treatment, individual therapy, and parenting coaching. Respondent completed parenting and substance abuse classes in 2021 and domestic violence class in February 2023. After the agency suspected respondent was using substances when she showed up to a few visits smelling like marijuana, she completed three out of four random drug drops. The results of the first two drops were negative, and Armstrong was waiting for the third drop result. Respondent was attending individual therapy and had completed five out of seven sessions. Respondent's initial therapist resigned from his agency in July 2022, and Armstrong learned from the new therapist that respondent struggled to open up to her.
¶ 7 Regarding visitation, respondent visited Z.G. on Mondays and K.G. and A.G. on Wednesdays. The visits were separate because the agency believed she could not handle all three children at one time. During the visits, Armstrong observed respondent giving most of her attention to Z.G., while K.G. and A.G. "are usually doing their own thing." Respondent was consistent with her visits with Z.G. but usually would not attend her visits with K.G. and A.G. if Z.G. was not present. Armstrong also read in the case notes that respondent laid on the floor asleep during a few visits. Z.G. "has been pulling out her hair," "having accidents at school," and "having tantrums after visits at school to the point that the foster parent has to go to the school." Armstrong believed Z.G.'s tantrums may have been caused by her request for respondent to take Z.G.'s phone. During that visit, Armstrong observed respondent telling Z.G. to "act appropriately in the visit so that she can get her back" because "she's acting these ways is the reason why this is prolonged and the case is still in care." Z.G. was referred to trauma-based therapy but still on the waitlist, and K.G. will be referred for speech evaluation and assessment. The minors' current placements were safe and appropriate. The agency recommended a goal of returning home within 12 months pending services "because the Court ordered her to complete parenting coaching for a second time" within 30 days of the December 9 court date. Armstrong believed respondent made progress in the recommended services.
¶ 8 The foster mother for Z.G. and A.G., and the foster mother for K.G. stated they were committed to providing permanency for the minors, including the possibility of adoption. The foster mother for Z.G. stated she experienced stress after her visits with respondent, including "dwindling in her behavior and being a little nervous, agitated, pulling her hair from the scalp and having bowel issues." These issues would dissipate when the visits stopped. The foster mother for K.G. stated K.G. had been with her for almost three years and "is a wonderful, loving little girl."
¶ 9 At the conclusion of the testimony, the court entered a goal of "substitute care pending a court determination on termination of parental rights." In so holding, the court stated the following:
"THE COURT: So, the Court's going to enter a goal of substitute care pending Court determination on termination of parental rights. Make a finding of reasonable efforts. Finding that the placement is necessary and appropriate to the case plan and goal. I am concerned about the therapy, so we're going to bring this back in two months. At that time, it will be for status on the trauma therapy for -- sorry.
MS. O'BRIEN: [Z.G.], Judge.
THE COURT: Thank you, for [Z.G.] I'm going to order that trauma therapy be started prior to that court date. You know, it is not acceptable, given the history of the severe trauma responses that this child is having, that we can sit around and say we're going to wait for our agency to have a trauma therapist available. There are other trauma therapies available out there, other trauma therapists, and the agency needs to go out and get one and get this child in therapy right away. That's my biggest concern.
So, we're going to go off the record. We're going to pick a date three months today. And on that date, it will status on the trauma therapy to [Z.G.] and first time TPR petition. So I'm ordering the State to file a petition on or before that date. These children have been in the system for quite some time.
There is no reason to believe at this point in time, based on the clinical evidence that's been provided, that this mother will be able to care for these children in the reasonably] foreseeable future. And they are in supportive, loving foster homes. And so that's the reason that I'm changing the goal at this time. Let's go off the record and get that date."
¶ 10 The State filed three motions to terminate parental rights and appoint a guardian with the right to consent to adoption for each of the minors on April 12, 2023. The petitions alleged respondent was an unfit parent in that she failed (1) to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the children's welfare pursuant to section 1(D)(b) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2022)) and (2) to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of the child or reasonable progress toward the return of the child within nine months after adjudication of neglect or abuse or any nine month period after said finding (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West 2022)). As to section 1(D)(m), the State listed the relevant nine-month period as May 14, 2022, to February 14, 2023.
¶ 11 The fitness hearing occurred on October 2, 2023. The court took judicial notice of its adjudication and dispositional findings. The court first heard the testimony of Teandra Armstrong. She was assigned as the minors' caseworker on June 28, 2022. At the time Z.G. and K.G. came into DCFS care in 2020, respondent was assessed services for ongoing individual therapy, psychiatric assessment and treatment, substance abuse assessment and treatment, ongoing random drug drops, parenting coaching, and parenting classes.
¶ 12 Respondent completed substance abuse assessment and treatment in 2021 but did not complete the recommended follow-up aftercare classes. Armstrong had some concerns about respondent's sobriety from November 2022 to January 2023. During that time, respondent smelled like "strong marijuana" during visits and "came to a couple of visits under the influence." Thereafter, Armstrong requested respondent take random drug drops once a week or once every two weeks. Respondent was not cooperative with the requested drops and only attended from January 2023 to March 2023. Armstrong informed respondent about how the agency views missed drops, and respondent appeared to understand. Respondent explained that she could not attend drops in April 2023 because she had a miscarriage and was on bedrest. She did not provide medical documentation or any other verification. Respondent explained she could not attend drops in June 2023 because she was in a serious car accident that left her immobile but did not provide medical documentation. Armstrong did observe respondent had a broken arm, wrist, leg, and ankle during that time.
¶ 13 Respondent completed domestic violence services twice and completed the first class prior to Armstrong's assignment. Respondent was asked to participate in the class again after she was arrested for domestic violence against a roommate. She completed the second domestic violence class in February 2023. After respondent completed a psychiatric evaluation, it was recommended she participate in individual therapy and medication monitoring. She was initially engaged in individual therapy until her therapist resigned from his agency. Respondent was referred to another agency and began therapy services but was unsuccessfully discharged in September 2023. During this time, respondent successfully completed parenting classes and coaching. Armstrong had some reporting concerns about the parenting coaching because respondent had two coaches and the first coach did not leave a report to assist in assessing her current progress. Respondent had not been cooperative with medication monitoring or any psychiatric reevaluation.
¶ 14 Respondent's visitation plan consisted of her visits with Z.G. for 30 minutes on Mondays and K.G. and A.G. for 30 minutes on Wednesdays. The visits were separate because "it was too overwhelming for all three kids to be in one visit." Respondent would attend the Monday visits with Z.G. but would not show up for the Wednesday visits if K.G. was alone. The duration of the visits was extended to an hour in August 2022. Between June and August 2022, Armstrong observed respondent could not appropriately handle Z.G.'s tantrums and was not receptive to feedback. Respondent continued to have visits with the minors between August 2022 and February 2023. Armstrong did not observe any progress in parenting. Once the permanency goal changed to "substitute care pending a court determination on termination of parental rights," the visits were reduced to one hour a week with all three minors for the purpose of respondent's parenting coaching. Armstrong did not observe any changes in respondent's parenting skills during that time, and the visitations never progressed to the recommended two-hour visit with the minors because there were "concerns that she would not be able to parent or be in visits with all three girls at one time." Respondent brought food to the visits and gave gifts to the children for Christmas.
¶ 15 Respondent currently had stable housing and reported that she lived alone. She also reported that her and the minors' natural father were not in a relationship. Armstrong made an unannounced visit to respondent's residence in September 2023. Respondent and the minors' natural father were present. Armstrong looked around the residence and observed more than one pair of male shoes in the living room and "roaches in the home, excessive amount of roaches." Respondent informed Armstrong that the residence is treated once a week to eliminate the roaches. The natural father told Armstrong that he comes over to help respondent sometimes. Both respondent and the natural father stated he did not live in the residence. The natural father inquired about the consequences of respondent and him being in a relationship. Armstrong informed him that they would be re-referred for domestic violence services. Armstrong was not aware of any domestic violence incidents between respondent and the natural father during her assignment. Armstrong never lost contact with respondent nor had to locate her.
¶ 16 The court admitted the following exhibits into evidence: (1) State's exhibit 1 is respondent's integrated assessment dated June 29, 2020; (2) State's exhibits 2 through 7 are services plans dated August 9, 2020; February 22, 2021; August 5, 2021; February 16, 2022; August 8, 2022; and January 31, 2023; (3) State's exhibit 8 through 12 are court reports dated August 2022, December 2022, February 2023, April 2023, and August 2023; (4) State's exhibit 13 is a series of caseworker notes; (5) State's exhibit 15 is a series of emails between the caseworker and service providers; (6) State's exhibit 16 is respondent's psychological evaluation dated November 12, 2021; (7) State's exhibit 17 is respondent's parenting capacity assessment; (8) State's exhibit 18 is a service plan dated August 17, 2023; (9) State's exhibit 19 is respondent's individual therapy closing summary; (10) State's exhibit 20 is an update on the natural father; (11) public defender's exhibit 1 is a parenting coaching report; and (12) public defender's exhibit 2 is a child welfare counseling quarterly progress report.
¶ 17 Respondent's integrated assessment detailed her childhood, including her family's history with DCFS, her mother's struggles with substances, and her tumultuous relationship with her aunt, whom she lived with as a toddler into adulthood. At the time of the assessment process, respondent was in a relationship with the natural father and denied domestic violence in their relationship. Police reports revealed the police had visited respondent's home in the past for domestic issues between her and the natural father. Respondent was unemployed, receiving social security disability payments for her learning disability, and living with the natural father in her sister's home. She claimed she made the decision to move out of her apartment. However, it was reported that respondent lived in squalor with diapers and garbage throughout the apartment and Z.G.'s crib did not have sheets or blankets. Respondent has a criminal background and her latest arrest for domestic battery, child endangerment, and refusing to cooperate with police was in February 2020. Respondent reported that she smoked marijuana three times per day during her pregnancies to increase her appetite. She currently smokes marijuana on holidays only and denied using additional substances. In October 2016, respondent tested positive for phencyclidine (PCP) and marijuana in a psychiatric assessment. She has also been arrested for cocaine and heroin possession. Respondent had been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and was prescribed medication. It was also reported that respondent had an "extremely low" IQ of 55 and had prior hospitalizations for mania and aggressive behaviors. Several services were recommended for respondent, including individual therapy, psychiatric assessment and treatment, substance abuse assessment and treatment, ongoing toxicology testing, parenting education and coaching, supervised visitation, and child-parent psychotherapy.
¶ 18 In respondent's psychological evaluation, Dr. Hunneke made several conclusions regarding respondent's mental state. Respondent's "emotional, psychological, personality, and behavioral development is underformed." Respondent's full scale IQ score was 68, which is in the deficient range and her cognitive functioning scores were consistent with an intellectual disability. Her deficits can impact her ability to function independently on a consistent basis as well as to parent effectively over time. The report recommended individual psychotherapy, parenting capacity assessment and coaching, substance abuse treatment, a vocational specialist, and assessment for an adult guardian due to her intellectual disability.
¶ 19 The service plans provided the list of recommended reunification services for respondent including (1) finding and maintaining stable housing for her family, (2) signing consent for release of information; (3) providing documentation to the caseworker regarding her employment; (4) maintaining a source of income to support herself and her children; (5) participating in parenting classes; (6) participating in visitation; (7) participating in individual therapy; (8) participating in domestic violence assessment; (9) cooperating with any urine or blood tests as requested by the caseworker and treatment facility; (10) completing substance abuse evaluation; (11) stopping the use of alcohol and illegal drugs; and (12) completing JCAP assessment for alcohol and drug use.
¶ 20 The remaining exhibits contained the following facts about respondent. In February 2021, respondent completed parenting classes and was involved in individual therapy and substance abuse services. Respondent had her own apartment, but it was unclear whether she lived alone or with the natural father. She reportedly had part-time employment at Popeyes although no documentation verifying her employment was provided to the agency. Respondent's visitation was sporadic as she attended half of the offered visitation in the last six months. Respondent completed JCAP assessment and was in outpatient services. She reported being sober despite using marijuana on a regular basis in the past.
¶ 21 In August 2021, Armstrong reported, while respondent obtained housing, the stability of the living arrangement was unclear and it was unknown whether the natural father was living there at the time. Respondent had not provided the agency with any documentation regarding her current income. She struggled with appropriate discipline and meeting needs of the individual minors during visitation and had been assigned a parenting coach. Despite being in individual therapy, there were still ongoing concerns about her mental health. Respondent had undergone a psychiatric evaluation and was referred for a psychological evaluation. Respondent completed outpatient classes for alcohol and drugs but had not attended the aftercare classes. Respondent reported using marijuana, had come to visits under the influence, and had refused to complete any random drug drops.
¶ 22 In January 2022, respondent was arrested for domestic violence when she got in a fight with her current roommate. In February 2022, Armstrong reported respondent's housing and employment were unclear, and she had not provided documentation to the agency in the last six months. Respondent still struggled with appropriate discipline and meeting the needs of the individual minors during visitation. She continued to work with a parenting coach and was open to suggestions. Respondent was involved in individual therapy, but there were still ongoing concerns about her mental health and the relationship between her and the natural father. It was still reported that respondent did not follow up with her aftercare classes following completion of outpatient treatment. Respondent participated in psychiatric and psychological evaluations and completed domestic violence class. She completed a parenting capacity assessment in July 2022 and was referred for parenting coaching.
¶ 23 In August 2022, Armstrong reported respondent was living with her god sister and currently unemployed. She had not provided any documentation to the agency in the last six months and was assigned a housing advocate. Parent-child visitation was for 30 minutes with Z.G. on Mondays and 30 minutes with A.G. and K.G. on Wednesdays. While visits have been more frequent, they still remain sporadic. Respondent missed three visits in July 2022 and two visits in August 2022. Armstrong informed respondent that a clinical evaluation would be conducted to assess extending the visitations to an hour if the visits stayed consistent. Respondent continued to struggle with meeting the needs of the individual minors during visitation, specifically K.G. Respondent has been open to suggestions from her parenting coach and continues to work with her. There are still concerns about the relationship between respondent and the natural father and if they learned to be non-violent with each other. When asked to complete drug drops, respondent stated that marijuana will show. After 15 months of individual therapy, respondent's therapist resigned from his agency. It was recommended that respondent continue working with a therapist and she reported that she was willing to re-engage in individual therapy. She was on the waitlist for in-house therapy.
¶ 24 In November 2022, Armstrong again reported that visitation remained sporadic, and respondent continued to struggle with meeting the needs of the minors during visits, specifically K.G. On November 8, respondent told Armstrong that" 'if I can't see [Z.G.] and [A.G.], I don't want to see [K.G.]' as well as other expletives toward the children." On November 9, respondent was thought to be under the influence and smelled of marijuana. Armstrong re-explained the expectations around visits, and respondent agreed to complete drug drops. On November 14, Armstrong observed respondent giving Z.G. a butterfly bracelet. The case aide informed respondent that Z.G. could not take items back into daycare when she returns. Respondent told Z.G. to put the bracelet in her pocket and not to let anyone take it away from her but reluctantly took the bracelet back after the case aide told her to keep it. Z.G. began to act out and respondent told Z.G. "you see the lady with the computer, she is documenting everything and you're going to prolong our situation." On November 16, Armstrong observed respondent had minimal and nonchalant interaction with K.G. According to the case aide, respondent attempted to engage with K.G. but K.G. did not want to play with her. Respondent stated, "fine then I don't care" and did not engage with K.G. for 5 minutes. Respondent then told the caseworker "I can't do this anymore. I don't know what to do *** any of this. I can't bond with her she doesn't feel like my daughter. She keeps telling me no and doesn't want to do anything with me. I asked her did she wanted to read a book like I did with [Z.G.] on Monday, but once again she said no." Respondent also expressed her concern that she did not have a bond with K.G. as she did with the other minors. Armstrong gave respondent suggestions on how to bond with the minors. Respondent stated that she would cancel visits with K.G. if A.G. could not attend.
¶ 25 Respondent was scheduled to begin individual therapy on November 29, 2022, but did not show for the session. Armstrong called respondent, but the call was blocked. Armstrong knew respondent received the virtual invite for the session because the system indicated she attempted to log on the following day. Respondent was re-enrolled in a domestic violence class and attended class every Wednesday. The course facilitator reported respondent did not follow the requirement prohibiting other people from attending the meetings and she showed a lack of engagement during the meetings. Armstrong reported respondent accepted an apartment through the Norman Housing Program. She requested an apartment change because she had no hot water in the kitchen, the building was infested with roaches, and she did not feel safe in the building. Respondent was a no show to her therapy sessions on November 29 and December 6, 2022, and attended her sessions on December 13 and 20, 2022.
¶ 26 In January 2023, respondent was unemployed and had not provided any documentation to the agency in the last six months. Respondent continued to struggle with appropriate discipline and meeting the needs of the individual minors during visitation. On January 4, respondent was observed acting frustrated with K.G for most of the visit after being asked to calm down by the case aide. On January 30, respondent tried to end her visit with Z.G. early because she could not handle her tantrum when Z.G.'s phone was taken away. Respondent told Z.G., "I don't really care what she (the caseworker) says about the phone, but we can do something different. If you keep acting like this mommy won't ever get you back. I'm not going to lie to you mommy got taken away at this age too, so you have to be good so I can get you back." The therapist reported that respondent "has been attending sessions. She initially was guarded during sessions and she is often resistant saying she 'discussed these things with the previous therapist.' She gets very emotional when she discusses the kids and says she feels like she is not making any progress." Respondent completed domestic violence class for the second time but it was unclear whether she had learned to be non-violent. Respondent completed three out of four drug drops. One of the drops returned negative results, and the agency was waiting for the results of the other two drops. Respondent attended her therapy sessions on January 2, 10, and 17, 2023. In total, respondent attended five out of seven therapy sessions.
¶ 27 On March 1, the therapist reported that respondent talks about how she feels the case is not getting anywhere although she is putting forth her best efforts. Respondent sometimes stated that she only wants Z.G. and A.G. back and other times threatens to run away and "leave them all behind." When the therapist tries to speak of certain topics, respondent stated she already discussed it with the previous therapist or doesn't need to address it. Respondent also believed her case worker did not want to help her maintain her rights over the minors. Armstrong reported that respondent did a "great job" during her visit on March 27. Respondent informed the agency that she was pregnant in March 2023. Around that time, Armstrong reported that respondent expressed she was going to run away to Milwaukee so DCFS would not be able to get her baby and to start a new life. Respondent subsequently lost the pregnancy.
¶ 28 By April 2023, respondent completed three out of four drug drops and the drops returned negative results. She was consistently participating in individual therapy but continued to appear guarded and resistant during sessions according to the therapist. On April 10, respondent was allowed to take the minors across the street to Popeyes with the parenting coach. Respondent became irate toward the Popeyes staff in front of the minors, and the parenting coach brought the minors back to the agency. When respondent came back to the agency, she did not bring any food and was frustrated the remaining time of the visit. In another incident, Armstrong's supervisor, Alexandra Hernandez, received a call from respondent who explained she discovered the caregiver's teenage daughters were watching Z.G. and A.G. and they were not given background checks. Respondent also believed the caregiver was ignoring her although she admitted telling the agency she did not want anything to do with the caregiver. Respondent also expressed her feelings of lack of support and not making progress. Hernandez responded that she would have the caseworker speak with the caregiver about approved childcare.
¶ 29 On April 13, Armstrong received a report from the therapist stating:
"I want to make you aware that [respondent] just had a bad session today and it was ended prematurely. She had her camera off the entire time and was clearly around others as she was having side conversations with people. She came to the session already irate. However, when discussing how her interactions were going during the visitations, and the parenting coaching, she became even more irate. She stated she had no plans of working with someone new once current parenting coach left. No matter my attempts to de-escalate her, she continued to be irate vocalizing her irritation with me. When I offered to end her session and resume once she calmed down, she threatened to report me like she has reported others at the agency. She thinks that my note will reflect her personal statements and that's not allowed. She stated that she no longer wants to see me as her therapist, prefers a white therapist, and has no intentions of returning to her next session."
Respondent returned the following session but had a similar response.
¶ 30 On April 17, respondent exhibited frustration with the minors during the visitation. She appeared "agitated" and did not say goodbye when she left. Hernandez followed up with respondent who asked about her role toward reunification and inquired about the caregiver's husband in the home and daughters' background checks. Respondent stated she had been talking with an "investigation lady" and that the lady would "pop up" to the caregiver's home to "find out the lies." She explained the lady used to work for DCFS and informed her that the agency was doing her wrong. Hernandez responded that the agency was trying to follow up on the things she expressed but that there were no concerns of abuse or neglect in the foster home.
¶ 31 In May 2023, Hernandez received a call from respondent. Respondent noted Z.G. and A.G. were not at a visit because the caregiver was on vacation, expressed concern about the caregiver's estranged husband and daughters, and stated she was going to call DCFS to make a hotline call on the caregiver. Respondent stated she wanted the minors removed from the caregiver's home. Hernandez responded that the minors had been with the caregiver since they came into DCFS care and there were no concerns of abuse or neglect in the foster home. Respondent replied she was going to have her "investigation lady" find things out and call the hotline on the caregiver. Respondent refused to provide any concerns of abuse and neglect against the caregiver.
¶ 32 Respondent was successfully discharged from parenting coaching in July 2023. The parenting coaching summary report dated July 21 provided that, since May 2023, respondent showed improvement by putting into practice the feedback provided by the coach when engaging with the minors. Respondent "engaged in activities that promote empathy" and was "resilient through the activities and did not give up even when her children were not responding in the manner she would like." The coach recommended closing respondent's parenting coaching services "as a result of positively engaging and presenting with a commitment to the use of nurturing parenting techniques."
¶ 33 In August 2023, Armstrong reported respondent had been consistent with individual therapy, parenting coaching, and visitation. However, she is not able to demonstrate adequate skills when interacting with the minors and in the community. Armstrong concluded that while respondent was consistent with services and showed promise, she struggled to care for the minors independently and the agency did not believe respondent had the mental ability, time management, income, or transportation to meet the minors' needs independently. Respondent still struggled with appropriate discipline and meeting the needs of the minors during visits. Although respondent continues individual therapy, there are still ongoing concerns about her mental health and willingness to engage in certain skills offered by the therapist. Respondent completed domestic violence class but it remained unclear whether she learned to be non-violent and whether respondent and the natural father, both of whom have a shared history of domestic violence, are in a relationship. Respondent had not followed up with substance abuse aftercare classes and was recently in a car accident limiting her mobility to attend drug drops and visits with the minors.
¶ 34 At the close of the evidence, the circuit court found the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that respondent was an unfit parent under section 1(D)(b) and section 1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act. The court acknowledged respondent "has been engaging in services" and "jumped through a number of hoops that the agency and the Court has asked her" but "one of the big concerns is the psych eval and the parenting capacity." The court's written order provides its finding that respondent was an unfit parent based on "(b) fail[ure] to make a reasonable degree of responsibility, [and] (m) failure to make reasonable progress."
¶ 35 The case proceeded to a best interest hearing. Armstrong testified that the minors were doing well in placement, and the agency believed it was in their best interests to terminate parental rights and set the permanency goal of adoption. The foster mother to Z.G. and A.G. testified that Z.G. had been in her home for three years and A.G. since infancy. Z.G. and A.G. get along with K.G. The girls were "doing great" and were involved in various activities. The foster mother for Z.G. and A.G. wished to adopt the minors. The foster mother for K.G. testified that K.G., now three years old, had been in her home since K.G. was seven days old. K.G. gets along with her older children, is involved in tumbling, and goes to support group activities where she can see families similar to her foster family. K.G. also has visits with her siblings. The foster mother for K.G. wished to adopt her. At the conclusion of the testimony, the circuit court found that it was in the best interest of the minors to terminate respondent's parental rights. Respondent appealed.
¶ 36 II. JURISDICTION
¶ 37 The circuit court entered its unfitness and parental termination orders on October 2, 2023. Respondent filed a notice of appeal on October 18, 2023. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and Rule 303 (eff. July 1, 2017).
¶ 38 III. ANALYSIS
¶ 39 On appeal, respondent argues (1) the circuit court's finding of unfitness was against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) the court erred in ordering the State to file a petition to terminate parental rights. We review each issue respectively.
¶ 40 A. Fitness
¶ 41 Respondent argues that the circuit court's finding of unfitness based on section 1(D)(b) and section 1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Respondent contends the evidence fails to show by clear and convincing evidence that she lacked a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility in the minors' welfare in accordance with section 1(D)(b). Rather, the evidence showed respondent participated in services, made progress in therapy, obtained an apartment, maintained a relationship with the minors through visitation, and expressed concern about the children. Respondent also contends the evidence fails to show by clear and convincing evidence that she failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minors under section 1(D)(m) during the nine-month period of May 14, 2022, to February 14, 2023. Respondent asserts the evidence showed her marijuana usage was not a concern after January 2023, she completed several services, and did not have any recurring domestic violence issues. Respondent further asserts that the court's finding on ground (m) should be reversed where it significantly relied on evidence outside the relevant nine-month period, specifically the psychological evaluation and the parenting capacity report, which relied on the psychological evaluation.
¶ 42 The State claims the evidence clearly and convincingly showed respondent lacked a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility because respondent struggled with substance abuse, domestic violence, mental health, and parenting skills during the pendency of the case. The State further contends the evidence clearly and convincingly shows lack of reasonable progress because respondent refused to participate in the recommended substance abuse aftercare program and provide drug drops when requested, continued marijuana use, inconsistently participated in therapy and visits, was unable to demonstrate the skills taught in her parenting programs, and continued to be in an abusive relationship.
¶ 43 A court's statutory authority to terminate a parent's rights involuntarily and to appoint a guardian with the right to consent to the child's adoption is governed by the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)) and the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/0.01 et seq. (West 2022)). Under the Juvenile Court Act, parental rights cannot be terminated absent the parent's consent unless the court first determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is an "unfit person" as defined in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2022)). 705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2022). The burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit rests with the State. In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill.2d 340, 354 (2005). When ruling on parental fitness, a court is not to consider the child's "best interest." In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill.2d 255, 276 (1990). Rather, it is the parent's past conduct in the then-existing circumstances that is under scrutiny. Id. A circuit court's determination that a parent's unfitness has been established by clear and convincing evidence will not be disturbed on review unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill.2d at 354. A court's decision regarding a parent's fitness is against the manifest weight of the evidence only where the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent. Id.
¶ 44 To find a parent unfit under section 1(D)(b) of the Adoption Act, the circuit court must find clear and convincing evidence that the parent "fail[ed] to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the child's welfare." 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2022). This ground does not focus on the parent's success but, instead, the reasonableness of her efforts and considers the parent's difficulties and circumstances. In re Nicholas C., 2017 IL App (1st) 162101, ¶ 24. A parent demonstrating some interest or affection toward her child does not render her fit under this ground; rather, her interest, concern, and/or responsibility must be reasonable. Id. Any of the three elements-the failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest or concern or responsibility as to the child's welfare-may be considered on its own as a basis in determining whether the parent is unfit. Id. Ground (b), unlike ground (m), has no time constraints that limit a court's consideration of a parent's fitness. Id. ¶ 21. "Noncompliance with an imposed service plan, a continued addiction to drugs, a repeated failure to obtain treatment for an addiction, and infrequent or irregular visitation with the child have all been held to be sufficient evidence warranting a finding of unfitness under subsection (b)." In re Jaron Z., 348 Ill.App.3d 239, 259 (2004).
¶ 45 To find a parent unfit under section 1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act, the circuit court must find clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed:
"(i) to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child from the parent during any 9-month period following the adjudication of neglected or abused minor under Section 2-3 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 or dependent minor under Section 2-4 of the Act or (ii) to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent during any 9-month period following the adjudication of neglected or abused minor under Section 2-3 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 or dependent minor under Section 2-4 of that Act." 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West 2022).
¶ 46 In this case, the State conceded that respondent made reasonable efforts and only argued that she failed to make reasonable progress during the fitness hearing. In their briefing, both parties solely raise an argument of reasonable progress. As such, we only review whether the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to make reasonable progress.
¶ 47 Our supreme court defined reasonable progress as" 'demonstrable movement toward the goal of reunification.'" In re C.N., 196 Ill.2d 181, 211 (2001) (quoting In re J.A., 316 Ill.App.3d 553, 565 (2000)). In considering whether reasonable progress has been made, a court may consider both progress with respect to correcting the original conditions and progress with respect to completing the service plan. Id. at 213-14. The State can show that a parent has not made reasonable progress by presenting evidence that the parent has not made such progress in complying with directives for return of the child that the court can, in the near future, return the child to his parent's custody. In re L.L.S., 218 Ill.App.3d 444, 461 (1991).
¶ 48 1. Ground (b): Reasonable Degree of Interest, Concern, or Responsibility
¶ 49 Here, we find the record sufficiently demonstrates the State proved by clear and convincing evidence respondent lacked a reasonable degree of responsibility under section 1(D)(b) because she failed to maintain stable housing and employment, struggled to meet the needs of the minors and demonstrate appropriate parenting skills during visitation, and was unwilling to engage in the recommended services throughout the pendency of the case. The record reveals respondent had difficulty maintaining stable housing. One of the bases for the removal of the minors was respondent's living condition. The agency reported that respondent was living in squalor, there were diapers and garbage throughout the residence, and no sheets or blankets in Z.G.'s crib. Between August 2021 and January 2022, respondent failed to provide any documentation concerning her living arrangement or employment. In August 2022, Armstrong reported respondent was living with her god sister. Respondent later accepted an apartment through the Norman Housing Program in November 2022. However, when Armstrong made an unannounced visit to respondent's residence in September 2023, she noticed "roaches in the home, excessive amount of roaches." Moreover, respondent was consistently unemployed. In February 2021, she reported part-time employment at Popeyes but did not provide documentation to verify her employment. A year later, Armstrong reported respondent's employment status as unclear. By August 2022, Armstrong reported that respondent was unemployed. Respondent was reported unemployed throughout the remainder of the case.
¶ 50 Respondent also consistently struggled to meet the needs of the minors and demonstrate appropriate parenting skills despite her participation in parenting class and coaching. Another basis for removal of the minors is respondent's arrest in connection with her care of Z.G. on February 23, 2020, when the police observed respondent pick Z.G. up and throw her onto a mattress four or five feet away. Between August 2021 and August 2022, the agency had concerns about respondent's parenting capacity, reporting that she came to visits under the influence and refused to complete any drug drops. On November 9, 2022, Armstrong confronted respondent after she arrived at a visit smelling of marijuana. Respondent eventually complied with the drug drops and her results were consistently negative. However, Armstrong reported that respondent's visits remained sporadic and she continued to struggle with meeting the needs of the minors during visits between November 2022 and January 2023. In bouts of frustration over bonding with the minors, respondent expressed that she did not want to see K.G. if she could not see Z.G. and A.G. and, at one point, stated she would leave the children behind. When the minors experienced tantrums, respondent would place blame on the minors stating, "If you keep acting like this mommy won't ever get you back" and "you see the lady with the computer, she is documenting everything and you're going to prolong our situation."
¶ 51 Furthermore, respondent was unwilling to engage in the recommended services. Respondent reported that she was willing to re-engage in therapy after her former therapist resigned from his agency in July 2022. In January 2023, the new therapist reported that respondent was guarded and "often resistant saying she 'discussed these things with the previous therapist." Respondent's behavior continued in March and April 2023. On April 13, the therapist reported that respondent had a "bad session" wherein she had the camera off, had side conversations with other individuals, and became irate during the session. By August 2023, the agency still had ongoing concerns about respondent's mental health and willingness to engage in certain skills offered by the therapist. Although respondent completed domestic violence class, the course facilitator reported that respondent did not follow the requirements because other people were present and she showed a lack of engagement during the meetings.
¶ 52 While we acknowledge respondent made efforts in some areas, she failed to take responsibility to rectify the significant factors contributing to the removal of the minors from her home. Respondent made inadequate effort to secure stable housing and employment, demonstrate appropriate parenting skills during visitation, and engage in the recommended services in order to reunify respondent and the minors. Therefore, the circuit court's finding that respondent lacked a reasonable degree of responsibility under section 1(D)(b) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 53 2. Ground (m): Reasonable Progress
¶ 54 Although a finding of unfitness based on section 1(D)(b) is sufficient to support a termination of parental rights (see In re Gwynne P., 215 Ill.2d 340, 349 (2005)), we continue our analysis to address the circuit court's finding of unfitness under section 1(D)(m). We begin with respondent's argument that the circuit court improperly relied on evidence outside the relevant nine-month period of May 14, 2022, to February 14, 2023. Respondent claims that the court should not have considered the psychological evaluation dated November 12, 2021, and the parenting capacity report dated July 26, 2022, which relied on the psychological evaluation although the report was created during the relevant nine-month period. In finding respondent was an unfit parent under section 1(D), the circuit court acknowledged that respondent "has been engaging in services" and "jumped through a number of hoops that the agency and the Court has asked her" but "one of the big concerns is the psych eval and the parenting capacity." The court did not provide any clarification as to which ground it considered this evidence. Nonetheless, we find no reversal is warranted where, absent the psychological evaluation and parenting capacity assessment, the evidence sufficiently shows respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minors during the relevant nine-month period under section 1(D)(m).
¶ 55 As previously stated, one of the bases for removal of the minors was respondent's arrest in connection with her care of Z.G. on February 23, 2020. During the relevant nine-month period, Armstrong reported that respondent's visits were sporadic, and she struggled meeting the needs of the minors despite parenting class and coaching. Respondent missed three visits in July 2022 and two visits in August 2022 with no justification. In November 2022, respondent expressed that she did not want to see K.G. if she could not see Z.G. and A.G. and stopped engaging with K.G. when she got frustrated during visits. When the minors experienced tantrums, respondent would place blame on the minors by again stating, "If you keep acting like this mommy won't ever get you back" and "you see the lady with the computer, she is documenting everything and you're going to prolong our situation." While respondent participated in several services, she struggled to implement the skills learned and, at times, was unwilling to engage in services, particularly individual therapy and domestic violence class. Respondent's therapist reported she was guarded and resistant during sessions, and the domestic violence facilitator reported she lacked engagement. Again, we recognize that respondent made efforts to complete the recommended services, but her continued struggle to retain and demonstrate appropriate skills provided through her services during the relevant nine-month period demonstrates the court could not, in the near future, return the minors to her custody. See In re L.L.S., 218 Ill.App.3d at 461. Considering this, we hold the circuit court's finding that respondent was an unfit parent pursuant to section 1(D)(m) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 56 B. Propriety of Circuit Court Order
¶ 57 Respondent argues the court erred in ordering the State to file a petition for termination of parental rights in its February 2023 order. Respondent alleges the Juvenile Court Act does not authorize the court to direct the State to file termination petitions sua sponte. Even if this court found that the circuit court had authority, its order was an abuse of discretion because it undermines the December 2022 order directing respondent to participate in parenting coaching. The purpose of the December 2022 order was to give respondent a chance to improve before changing the goal to "substitute care pending a court determination on termination of parental rights," and nothing new or urgent justified overriding the order. The State argues that the circuit court's order demonstrated no bias or partiality but rather a sincere and legitimate concern for the welfare of the minors. The State also contends that section 2-28(3)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-28(3)(a) (West 2022)) allows the court to enter "any order necessary to conform the minor's legal custody and status to such determination."
¶ 58 Section 2-28 of the Juvenile Court Act governs the court's duties in permanency proceedings. 705 ILCS 405/2-28 (West 2022). At a permanency hearing, the court must determine the future status of the minors and set one of the permanency goals enumerated in section 2-28(2), including a goal that "[t]he minor will be in substitute care pending a court determination on termination of parental rights." 705 ILCS 405/2-28(2)(C) (West 2022). The court subsequently enters a written order that details, inter alia, its determinations on "[t]he future status of the minor, including the permanency goal, and any order necessary to conform the minor's legal custody and status to such determination." 705 ILCS 405/2-28(3)(a) (West 2022).
¶ 59 In In re D.S., 198 Ill.2d 309, 326-27 (2001), our supreme court held that the circuit court had "the duty and the authority" under section 2-28(3)(a) to order the State to prosecute a petition to terminate parental rights after it entered a permanency goal of "substitute care pending a court determination on termination of parental rights." Here, Judge Griffin ordered the State to file a petition to terminate parental rights rather than prosecute a petition as the circuit court did in D.S. However, we find this distinction inconsequential because filing a petition also constitutes an "order necessary to conform the minor's legal custody and status to such determination," i.e., a permanency goal of "substitute care pending a court determination on termination of parental rights." Thus, we find the circuit court had authority under section 2-28(3)(a) to order the State to file a petition to terminate parental rights to conform with the updated permanency goal.
¶ 60 We further find the circuit court's order was reasonable where it correlates with the purpose of the Juvenile Court Act to ensure the best interest of the minors. In re D.S., 198 Ill.2d at 325 (the court has a duty to act in the best interest of the minor (citing In re J.J., 142 Ill.2d 1, 11 (1991)). Judge Griffin's order changing the permanency goal to "substitute care pending a court determination on termination of parental rights" occurred two months after Judge Thomas's December 2022 order to place respondent in parenting coaching. At that point, Judge Griffin found that the case had "been in the system for quite some time," "no reason to believe at this point in time, based on the clinical evidence that's been provided, that this mother will be able to care for these children in the reasonably] foreseeable future," and that the minors "are in supportive, loving foster homes." The court's reasoning demonstrates a concern for the well-being of the minors in accordance with its duties under the Juvenile Court Act. See In re T.B., 195 Ill.App.3d 919, 923 (1990) (finding the circuit court's admonishment to the State to file a petition to terminate parental rights was impartial because it showed a "sincere and legitimate concern for [the minor's] welfare"). Therefore, we find the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the State to file a petition to terminate parental rights.
¶ 61 IV. CONCLUSION
¶ 62 We hold the circuit court's finding that respondent was an unfit parent pursuant to section 1(D)(b) and section 1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. We also hold section 2-28(3)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act authorized the court to order the State to file a petition to terminate parental rights and the court did not abuse its discretion in exercising its authority. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's judgment.
¶ 63 Affirmed.