Opinion
4-24-0336 4-24-0338 4-24-0340 4-24-0341
07-03-2024
In re Jai. A., R.A., Ki. A., and Ka. A., Minors v. Terrance 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 Sangamon County Nos. 20JA227 20JA229 20JA230 20JA231 Honorable Karen S. Tharp, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Doherty and Vancil concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
DeARMOND, JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court did not err in terminating respondent's parental rights.
¶ 2 In May 2023, the State filed petitions seeking to terminate the parental rights of respondent, Terrance A. (Father), to his minor children, Jai. A. (born November 2011), R.A. (born October 2016), Ki. A. (born October 2017), and Ka. A. (born October 2017). Following a February 2024 hearing on the State's petitions, the trial court found Father unfit within the meaning of section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2022)) and, after finding it was in the minors' best interest, terminated his parental rights.
¶ 3 On appeal, Father argues the trial court's unfitness finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.
¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 5 A. The Neglect Petitions and the Adjudicatory and Dispositional Orders
¶ 6 In August 2020, the State filed petitions seeking to adjudicate the minors neglected under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2020)). The State alleged the minors were neglected due to being in an environment injurious to their welfare in that (1) their mother, Tenile C. (Mother), allowed Father, who she knew was a sex offender, to have access to them; (2) they resided in a home with unsanitary conditions; and (3) their parents engaged in domestic violence (id. § 2-3(1)(b)). In November 2020, the trial court adjudicated the minors neglected pursuant to Mother's admission to the domestic violence allegation. In a separate dispositional order entered in December 2020, the court found Father unfit, unable, or unwilling for reasons other than financial circumstances alone to care for the minors, made them wards of the court, and placed their guardianship and custody with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
¶ 7 B. The Termination Proceedings
¶ 8 1. The State s Petitions
¶ 9 On May 17, 2023, the State filed petitions seeking to terminate Father's parental rights to all the minors. The State alleged Father was unfit due to (1) failing to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minors' welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2022)); (2) failing to make (a) reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of the minors from him (id. § 1(D)(m)(i)) or (b) reasonable progress toward the return of the minors to him within three nine-month periods following the adjudication of neglect (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)), namely from November 12, 2020, to August 12, 2021, August 12, 2021, to May 12, 2022, and May 12, 2022, to February 12, 2023; and (3) an inability to discharge parental responsibilities due to an intellectual disability, and this inability was expected to last beyond a reasonable period of time (id. § 1(D)(p)).
¶ 10 2. The Unfitness Hearing
¶ 11 The trial court began the unfitness hearing on December 14, 2023, and completed it on February 15, 2024.
¶ 12 a. Dr. Tetyana Kostyshyna
¶ 13 Dr. Tetyana Kostyshyna is a licensed clinical psychologist. Kostyshyna conducted Father's psychosexual evaluation at the request of the DCFS Sexually Problematic Behaviors Unit due to allegations of child sexual abuse. During the December 2022 evaluation, Father reported being fully blind and receiving Social Security income. Father was unmarried but had approximately 50 children, including 6 he had with Mother (4 of whom are party to this appeal). Father sold cocaine and had a criminal history, including convictions for possession of illegal substances. Father was generally uncooperative during the interview portion of the evaluation. Due to Father's lack of cooperation, Kostyshyna could not assess his risk of sexually offending. The testing portion was administered solely in audio format due to Father's blindness. Kostyshyna diagnosed Father with antisocial personality disorder and alcohol use disorder. Kostyshyna recommended Father participate in a five-year treatment program tailored to antisocial personality disorder. Kostyshyna also recommended Father not be alone with children due to his aggressive behaviors. Kostyshyna opined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Father was an unfit parent.
¶ 14 b. McKenzie Vorreyer
¶ 15 McKenzie Vorreyer was the caseworker from April 2021 to September 2023. Vorreyer testified all the service plans were rated unsatisfactory for Father. This was because until May 2022, Father "did not complete any of his services." Vorreyer informed Father about each of his required services by text message, as this was the method of communication Father continuously requested. While Father eventually started engaging in services, "the only thing he completed was his parenting." In addition to parenting services, Father was directed to complete mental health and domestic violence services. Father reported engaging in mental health services at Memorial Behavioral Health, but personnel told Vorreyer there was no therapist there by the name Father reported. Father did not complete domestic violence services.
¶ 16 Due to concerns with Father being around children until he could be deemed "to be low to no risk" by a psychosexual evaluation, his visitation with the minors was stopped in October 2022. When visits occurred before October 2022, the visitation worker reported Father falling asleep and not engaging with the minors. While Father was allowed one visit per week, he would attend sporadically, attending one week but then missing the following three or four weeks. Father attributed this to "ha[ving] too much going on with himself." (Importantly, Father reported having a "personal assistant" who could drive him to visits. Additionally, Vorreyer completed a referral for the Sangamon Mass. Transit District to arrange transportation to visits.) There was never a point when Vorreyer was close to recommending the minors be returned to Father.
¶ 17 c. Kelly Johnston
¶ 18 Kelly Johnston had been the caseworker since September 1, 2023. Johnston testified Father's compliance with his August 14, 2023, service plan was unsatisfactory. While Father completed parenting services, he did not complete either mental health or domestic violence services. There was never a point when Johnston was close to recommending returning the minors to Father.
¶ 19 d. The Trial Court's Unfitness Findings
¶ 20 In delivering its unfitness findings, the trial court observed DCFS asked Father "to do services from the very beginning," but he "didn't begin to cooperate until May of 2022." The court also noted the importance of Father undergoing the psychosexual evaluation but how, due to his own "uncooperativeness with the evaluation," Kostyshyna was not able to determine his risk of sexually offending. The court described Father's lack of engagement in services during the first two nine-month periods:
"[Father] went through two full nine-month time periods. November of [20]20 to August of [20]21 and August of [20]21 to May of [20]22 he didn't do anything in that time frame. He cooperated with zero services. It wasn't until May of [20]22 where he began to cooperate. That was the start of the third nine-month time period. The only thing he did [was] parenting services. He never did Preventing Abusive Relationships, the domestic violence services. He never engaged in mental health services. So, even absent the *** psychosexual evaluation in December of [20]22, he went through two full nine-month periods with doing nothing."
¶ 21 The trial court also noted that "[e]ven in the third nine-month period, [Father] never addressed the issue that led to the adjudication in this case." The court ultimately found the State had proven Father unfit on all grounds alleged in the termination petitions.
¶ 22 3. The Best Interest Hearing
¶ 23 The trial court proceeded to the best interest hearing, after which it determined it was in the minors' best interest to terminate Father's parental rights.
¶ 24 This appeal followed.
¶ 25 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 26 A. Unfitness Finding
¶ 27 On appeal, Father argues only the trial court's unfitness finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Father does not challenge the court's best interest finding.
¶ 28 The Juvenile Court Act and the Adoption Act govern the termination of parental rights. In re D.F., 201 Ill.2d 476, 494, 777 N.E.2d 930, 940 (2002). Together, the statutes outline what the State must show before a person's parental rights may be terminated-the State must first show the parent is an "unfit person," and then the State must show terminating parental rights serves the best interest of the child. Id. at 494-95.
¶ 29" 'The State must prove parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence.'" In re A.L., 409 Ill.App.3d 492, 500, 949 N.E.2d 1123, 1129 (2011) (quoting In re Jordan V., 347 Ill.App.3d 1057, 1067, 808 N.E.2d 596, 604 (2004)). The Adoption Act provides several grounds on which a trial court may find a parent "unfit." 750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2022). Despite several potential bases for unfitness, "sufficient evidence of one statutory ground *** [is] enough to support a [court's] finding that someone [is] an unfit person." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re F.P., 2014 IL App (4th) 140360, ¶ 83, 19 N.E.3d 227.
¶ 30 Under section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act, a parent may be found unfit if he fails to "make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent during any 9-month period following the adjudication of neglected *** minor." 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022). Reasonable progress exists when the evidence shows "the progress being made by a parent to comply with directives given for the return of the child is sufficiently demonstrable and of such a quality that the court, in the near future, will be able to order the child returned to parental custody." (Emphasis in original.) In re L.L.S., 218 Ill.App.3d 444, 461, 577 N.E.2d 1375, 1387 (1991). A "parent's failure to substantially fulfill his *** obligations under the service plan and correct the conditions that brought the child into care during any 9-month period following the adjudication" constitutes a failure to make reasonable progress for purposes of section 1(D)(m)(ii). 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022). Additionally, the "failure to make reasonable progress" includes the failure to correct any condition that would prevent the trial court from returning custody of the child to the parent. In re C.N., 196 Ill.2d 181, 217, 752 N.E.2d 1030, 1051 (2001).
¶ 31 This court pays" 'great deference'" to a trial court's fitness finding" 'because of [that court's] superior opportunity to observe the witnesses and evaluate their credibility.'" A.L., 409 Ill.App.3d at 500 (quoting Jordan V., 347 Ill.App.3d at 1067). We "will not reverse a trial court's fitness finding unless it was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, meaning that the opposite conclusion is clearly evident from a review of the record." Id.
¶ 32 Here, the trial court found Father unfit for failing to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minors to him during all three of the nine-month periods alleged in the termination petitions. See 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022). Despite its importance for the potential resumption of visitation after October 2022, Father thwarted Kostyshyna's ability to assess his likelihood of sexually offending by his lack of cooperation during the psychosexual evaluation. Father did not begin to engage in services until May 2022. Father did not complete any of his services during the first two nine-month periods. While Father completed parenting classes during the third nine-month period, he did not engage in mental health services or domestic violence services and, thus, "never addressed the issue that led to the adjudication in this case." Prior to October 2022, Father only visited the minors sporadically (despite having transportation available) and was disengaged, and he even fell asleep during visits. Father attributed his sporadic visitation to "too much going on with himself." There was no point when either Vorreyer or Johnston were close to recommending the minors be returned to Father.
¶ 33 Based on the evidence presented at the fitness hearing, the trial court's finding Father failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minors to him was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, as the opposite conclusion is not clearly evident. See A.L., 409 Ill.App.3d at 500. Because we can affirm the court's unfitness finding on this basis, we need not consider the other statutory grounds upon which the court found Father unfit. See F.P., 2014 IL App (4th) 140360, ¶ 83.
¶ 34 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 35 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 36 Affirmed.