From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wieck (In re H.W.)

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT
May 16, 2013
2013 Ill. App. 4th 121145 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

Opinion

NO. 4-12-1145

05-16-2013

In re: H.W., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ERNEST WIECK, Respondent-Appellant.


NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from

Circuit Court of

Champaign County

No. 12JA39


Honorable

John R. Kennedy,

Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Appleton and Turner concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court's order making the child a ward of the court, and removing custody of the child from her father, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶ 2 In September 2012, the State filed a petition for adjudication of neglect and shelter care alleging H.W. (born August 28, 2007), the minor child of respondent father, Ernest Wieck, was neglected. The minor child's mother, Laura Orr (Laura), is not a party to this appeal. ¶ 3 Following a December 2012 dispositional hearing, the trial court adjudicated H.W. a ward of the court, and placed custody and guardianship of H.W. with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). ¶ 4 Respondent appeals, arguing the trial court erred by adjudicating H.W. a ward of the court, and removing custody of H.W. from him. We affirm.

¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 6 According to the shelter care report, on August 21, 2012, DCFS received a report from a day-care provider stating Laura arrived over 18 hours late to pick up H.W. and admitted using cocaine during that time. Laura had a history of substance abuse and both respondent and Laura had been indicated by DCFS in approximately 2008. Following the August 2012 incident, DCFS entered a safety plan assigning H.W.'s care to respondent. The plan allowed for Laura to have contact with H.W. but under no circumstances could H.W. be left alone in Laura's care. ¶ 7 On a date unclear from the record, Laura and H.W. accompanied respondent while he worked as an over-the-road truck driver. On September 15, 2012, respondent reported to DCFS that he was hospitalized with pneumonia in the State of Oregon and H.W. was alone with Laura, possibly in Arizona. On September 23, 2012, Laura and H.W. rode with another truck driver from Arizona to Illinois. On September 24, 2012, DCFS took protective custody of H.W. based on allegations of inadequate supervision. DCFS placed H.W. in the home of her maternal grandmother. ¶ 8 On September 25, 2012, the State filed a three-count petition for adjudication of neglect and shelter care, alleging H.W. was neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2010)) because the minor was residing in an environment injurious to her welfare in that she was exposed to substance abuse (count I), inadequate supervision (count II), and risk of physical harm (count III). ¶ 9 On November 13, 2012, the trial court entered an adjudicatory order after respondent stipulated to count II. The State dismissed counts I and III as to respondent. ¶ 10 On November 26, 2012, the Center for Youth and Family Solutions prepared a permanency report for the trial court's consideration at a December 10, 2012, dispositional hearing. With regard to respondent, the permanency report indicated the following. Respondent worked 70 hours per week as an over-the-road truck driver. He lived with friends in Clinton, Indiana, but was rarely there because of his job. Respondent attended three supervised parent-child visits since DCFS took H.W. into custody. Respondent referred to H.W. as "the boss" and stated she was "his best friend." According to the report, respondent allowed H.W. to do whatever she wanted during the three visits. H.W. ignored directions from both respondent and the supervisor. ¶ 11 Respondent had not participated in recommended counseling services, or parenting and domestic violence classes, due to his hectic work schedule. He planned to begin services after the holiday season. According to the report, respondent viewed himself as a victim in this case, placing all of the blame on Laura. Further, the report expressed concern regarding respondent's "view of [H.W.] as his best friend," stating: "It is not an appropriate role for this young child and does not afford her the protection and support she needs from a parent." The permanency report recommended DCFS be granted custody and guardianship of H.W. ¶ 12 On December 6, 2012, a court-appointed special advocate (CASA) for H.W. prepared a report for the trial court in anticipation of the dispositional hearing. The CASA visited H.W. on November 6, 2012, in the home she shares with her maternal grandparents. Her grandmother reported taking H.W. to a nutritionist. H.W. is 5 years old and weighs 75 pounds. According to her grandmother, H.W. ate until she threw up. H.W. had not been vaccinated since age two, and her grandmother secured all of the appropriate vaccinations. The CASA expressed concern that H.W. was occasionally wetting the bed. Both H.W. and her grandmother reported seeing respondent very little. The CASA recommended H.W. remain in the care of her grand-mother. ¶ 13 At the December 10, 2012, dispositional hearing, Chiquita Oglesby testified she is a supervisor for the Center for Youth and Family Solutions. According to Oglesby, both respondent and Laura successfully completed the recommended services in the prior case (No. 08-JA-88), and H.W. was returned to their care. ¶ 14 Jessica Barnes testified that respondent is her father. She and her husband, Shaun Barnes, were willing to care for H.W. while respondent is "on the road." Shaun and Jessica last saw H.W. in April 2010. ¶ 15 Respondent testified he had to give up driving his truck in order to complete the services recommended by DCFS in the prior case. As a result, he got into financial trouble. He worked as a union painter but did not like painting. He has "restarted" his trucking business. Because he is "starting over from scratch," he is not able to be home. He planned to leave H.W. with his daughter and her husband, and planned to talk with H.W. multiple times each day by cell phone. Respondent had not used illegal drugs for at least six years. ¶ 16 When asked for recommendations, counsel for the State, Laura, and H.W. recommended H.W. be made a ward of the court, and placed in the custody and guardianship of DCFS. Respondent's counsel recommended custody of H.W. be placed with respondent. ¶ 17 The trial court stated it considered "the prior orders, the adjudicatory order, the written reports on file[] and the recommendations, the evidence presented at [the dispositional] hearing, [and] the recommendations of counsel." The court concluded it was in H.W.'s best interest that she be made a ward of the court and placed in the custody and guardianship of DCFS. ¶ 18 This appeal followed.

¶ 19 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 20 On appeal, respondent argues the trial court erred by adjudicating H.W. a ward of the court and removing custody of H.W. from him. We disagree. ¶ 21 Section 2-22 of the Juvenile Court Act provides that "[a]t the dispositional hearing, the court shall determine whether it is in the best interests of the minor and the public that he be made a ward of the court[.]" 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2010). The Juvenile Court Act authorizes a trial court to remove a child from the custody of her parent if the court determines the parent is unfit or unable to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minor and the health, safety, and best interests of the minor would be jeopardized if the minor remains in the custody of the parent. 705 ILCS 405/2-27 (West 2010). "The court's decision will be reversed only if the findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence or the court committed an abuse of discretion by selecting an inappropriate dispositional order." In re J.W., 386 Ill. App. 3d 847, 856, 898 N.E.2d 803, 811 (2008). "A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite result is clearly evident." In re A.W., 231 Ill. 2d 241, 254, 897 N.E.2d 733, 740 (2008). ¶ 22 Respondent admits he was not in a position to exercise physical custody of H.W. but suggests his daughter and her husband were "clearly capable of caring for children." According to the evidence presented at the dispositional hearing, respondent worked 70 hours per week as an over-the-road truck driver. He did not own a home and used a friend's address to receive mail. ¶ 23 Respondent attended three supervised parent-child visits since DCFS took H.W. into custody and had not participated in any of the recommended counseling services, or parenting and domestic violence classes. Respondent failed to recognize that his actions contributed to H.W.'s neglect, placing all of the blame on Laura. Although DCFS advised respondent that H.W. could not be left alone in Laura's care, respondent did not adequately plan for H.W.'s care while on the road. ¶ 24 Further, respondent referred to H.W. as "the boss," allowing the five-year-old to do whatever she wanted during the three supervised visits. H.W. ignored directions from respondent. The permanency report questioned respondent's characterization of H.W. as his "best friend" finding it an inappropriate role for a young child. According to the permanency report, H.W. did not need respondent to be her best friend but to provide protection and support. ¶ 25 The CASA reported that H.W. was 5 years old and weighed 75 pounds, had not been vaccinated since age 2, and wet the bed. According to her grandmother, H.W. ate until she threw up. Her grandmother reported taking H.W. to a nutritionist and securing all of the appropriate vaccinations. H.W. no longer wet the bed as frequently as when she first came to live with her maternal grandparents. Her eating habits had improved, and she and her grandmother took long walks in the evening. ¶ 26 The permanency report, the CASA's report, and counsel for the State, Laura, and H.W., recommended H.W. be made a ward of the court, and placed in the custody and guardianship of DCFS. Only respondent's counsel recommended custody of H.W. be placed with respondent. ¶ 27 The trial court considered "the prior orders, the adjudicatory order, the written reports on file[] and the recommendations, the evidence presented at [the dispositional] hearing, [and] the recommendations of counsel." The court concluded it was in H.W.'s best interest that she be made a ward of the court and placed in the custody and guardianship of DCFS. Based on the evidence presented, we find the trial court's order making H.W. a ward of the court, and placing her in the custody and guardianship of DCFS, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 28 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 29 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment. ¶ 30 Affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Wieck (In re H.W.)

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT
May 16, 2013
2013 Ill. App. 4th 121145 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Wieck (In re H.W.)

Case Details

Full title:In re: H.W., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS…

Court:APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

Date published: May 16, 2013

Citations

2013 Ill. App. 4th 121145 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)