Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division
In re Je. A., E.A., and Ja. A., Minors,
v.
Newgene A., Respondent-Appellant. The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee,
Appeal
from the Circuit Court of Cook County Nos. 13 JA 790, 13 JA
791 & 15 JA 795 Honorable Andrea Buford, Judge Presiding.
Attorneys for Appellant: Elizabeth Powell Butler, of
Northbrook, Illinois, for appellant.
Attorneys for Appellees: Kimberly M. Foxx, State's
Attorney, County of Cook (Alan J. Spellberg, Gina Divito,
Leslie Billings, Assistant State's Attorney's, of
counsel), for petitioner-appellee. Charles P. Golbert, Cook
County Public Guardian (Kass A. Plain, of counsel), for
minors-respondents-appellees.
JUSTICE CONNORS delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Justice Harris and Justice Delort concurred in the
judgment.
OPINION
CONNORS, JUSTICE
¶
1 This is an expedited appeal that concerns the care and
custody of minor children. Respondent Newgene A. appeals from
an order of the circuit court finding him unfit as a parent
as defined in sections 1(D)(b) and 1(D)(m) of the Adoption
Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b), (m) (West 2018)) and pursuant to
section 2-29 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS
405/2-29 (West 2018)) and terminating his parental rights to
his minor children, Je. A., E.A., and Ja. A. Respondent
contends that the evidence failed to establish that he was
unfit. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
¶
2 BACKGROUND
¶
3 Respondent is the biological father of twin boys, Je. A.
and E.A., born on August 9, 2013, and their younger brother
Ja. A., born August 3, 2015. Janica M.[1] is the mother of
all three boys.
¶
4 Background of the Case for Je. A. and E.A.
¶
5 The twins were taken into temporary protective custody 12
days after their birth on August 21, 2013, based on
allegations of abuse and neglect. On August 23, 2013, the
State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging
that their environment was injurious to their welfare and
that they were at a substantial risk of physical injury. The
petition reflected that Janica M. had three other minor
children that were in the custody of the Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS). Janica M. had been
inconsistent with services, including attending substance
abuse support group meetings, random urine drops, and
individual therapy. The petition also stated that she and
respondent needed to complete psychological evaluations.
Additionally, respondent was in need of services, including
therapy. The affidavit supporting the State's petition
stated that respondent was convicted of murder and served 35
years in prison. Respondent was asked to complete individual
and couples counseling but had not done so at the time the
petition was filed. Janica M. and respondent lived with
Janica M.'s mother, who also had a history of prior
involvement with DCFS.
¶
6 On August 23, 2013, a temporary custody hearing was held,
and the court found that probable cause of abuse and neglect
existed and there was an urgent and immediate need to remove
the twins from their parents' home. The court based its
finding on Janica M.'s history with DCFS, her failure to
comply with services, and respondent's failure to
follow-up on recommended services. At the time,
respondent's paternity had not yet been established. Also
on that date, the public guardian was appointed to represent
the twins.
¶
7 On October 22, 2013, the court entered paternity orders,
finding that respondent was the twins' father. On May 22,
2014, the court held an adjudication hearing and found the
twins neglected due to an injurious environment (705 ILCS
405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2012)) based on Janica M.'s extensive
history with DCFS, substance misuse, and failure to complete
services. Additionally, the order reflected that paternity
had not been established[2] and that respondent required assessment
and services.
¶
8 On June 13, 2014, the court conducted a permanency planning
hearing and set a permanency goal of return home within 12
months. The court's order reflected that Janica M. had
made "some progress" towards the twins' return
home, respondent had made substantial progress towards the
twins' return home, but that respondent and Janica M. had
not successfully completed reunification services. The twins
were adjudicated wards of the court, and respondent was found
"unable for some reason other than financial
circumstances alone to care for, protect, train, or
discipline the minor[s]."
¶
9 On October 17, 2014, the court entered another permanency
order with a goal of return home within 12 months, finding
that "mother and father have made progress in
services."
¶
10 On April 17, 2015, the court entered an order setting the
twins' permanency goal at return home within 12 months,
finding that respondent had made substantial progress towards
this goal and that the parents were engaged in reunification
services and visitation. The order also stated that the twins
were placed with nonrelative foster parents. On October 15,
2015, the court entered another permanency order with the
goal of return home within 12 months. That order did not
contain a finding about respondent's progress but stated
that he and Janica M. were engaged in reunification services
and visitation.
¶
11 On October 19, 2016, the court entered a permanency order
that changed the twins' goal to substitute care pending a
court determination on termination of parental rights. The
order stated as follows: the twins are "three years old
and placed together in a stable, preadoptive home.
Mother's whereabouts are unknown. Father is incarcerated.
Reunification services remain outstanding. Parent-child
visitation has been inconsistent."
¶
12 Background of the Case for Ja. A.
¶
13 Ja. A. was taken into temporary protective custody three
days after his birth on August 6, 2015, based on allegations
of abuse and neglect. On August 10, 2015, the State filed a
petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging that his
environment was injurious to his welfare and that he was at a
substantial risk of physical injury. The petition stated that
Janica M. had five other children that were in DCFS custody.
In addition to the same allegations contained in the
twins' petition, the State alleged that Janica M. had not
attended support meetings since November 2014 and missed
several urine drops since March 2015. The petition also
stated that respondent needed to complete random urine drops
and additional parent coaching and had been noncompliant with
the urine drops. Respondent and Janica M. were then living
together. Also on that date, the court held a temporary
custody hearing and found that based on the allegations of
the State's petition, probable cause existed that Ja. A.
was abused or neglected, which supported his removal from the
home. The public guardian was appointed to represent Ja. A.
¶
14 On August 19, 2015, the court entered a temporary custody
order, finding that probable cause existed that Ja. A. was
neglected and that there was an immediate and urgent need to
remove him from the home based on Janica M.'s history
with DCFS and outstanding services. The order also stated
that respondent's paternity had not yet been established
and that he had outstanding drops. Also on that date,
respondent was granted supervised day visitation with Ja. A.
of eight hours per week. On October 15, 2015, the court
entered a paternity order, finding that respondent was Ja.
A.' s father.
¶
15 On January 21, 2016, the court entered an adjudication
order for Ja. A., finding that he was abused or neglected
based on an injurious environment (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b)
(West 2014)) and substantial risk/physical injury
(id. § 2-3(2)(ii)). The order stated that the
parents had prior DCFS involvement, Janica M. had a history
of substance misuse and had not completed recommended
services, and that the parents resided together.
¶
16 On January 11, 2017, the court adjudicated Ja. A. a ward
of the court, finding that both respondent and Janica M. were
"unable for some reason other than financial
circumstances alone to care for, protect, train, or
discipline the minor." The order reflected that services
aimed at family preservation and reunification had been
unsuccessful.
¶
17 On March 9, 2017, the court entered a permanency order
with a goal of substitute care pending court determination of
termination of parental rights. The order reflected that Ja.
A. was one-and-a-half years old and in a two-parent foster
home. Respondent was incarcerated and Janica M. had not
visited Ja. A.
¶
18 Termination Proceedings
¶
19 The State filed motions for the appointment of a guardian
with the right to consent to adoption for the twins on
January 30, 2017, and on July 21, 2017, for Ja. A.
(collectively, termination petitions). The termination
petitions listed respondent's address as Danville
Correctional Center. The termination petitions alleged that
respondent was unfit to parent under section 1(D)(b) of the
Adoption Act (failure to maintain a reasonable degree of
interest, concern, or responsibility as to the children's
welfare) and section 1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act (failure to
make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were
the basis of removal of the children and/or failure to make
reasonable progress toward return of the children within any
nine-month period). On April 24, 2018, the State filed its
pleading specifying the nine-month time periods for progress
for the twins as May 22, 2014, through February 22, 2015;
February 23, 2015, through November 23, 2015; November 24,
2015, through August 24, 2016; and January 19, 2016, through
October 19, 2016. The State also specified the nine-month
time periods for progress for Ja. A. as January 21, 2016,
through October 21, 2016, and June 9, 2016, through March 9,
2017.
¶
20 Unfitness Hearing
¶
21 On May 16, 2018, the court began respondent's
unfitness hearing as to all three minor children. The court
ultimately entered an order terminating Janica M.'s
parental rights as a result of default through publication on
January 23, 2018. Also on that date, the State filed an
amended pleading specifying a single nine-month time period
for progress as January 19, 2016, through October 19, 2016,
for the twins and June 9, 2016, through March 9, 2017, for
Ja. A.
¶
22 The State called respondent to testify. Respondent
testified that from September 2016 through September 2017, he
was incarcerated at Danville Correctional Center. Respondent
explained that he was incarcerated for failing to register as
a murderer, which he was required to do for 10 years.
Respondent stated that he had registered for three years, but
after his kids were born and DCFS got involved, the situation
became very stressful. He also stated that registering had
"slip[ped] [his] mind" because he was "most
focused on [his] kids being in DCFS" and that he was
"going through a lot of stuff with their mother."
Respondent testified that while incarcerated he requested
visits with his children. He stated that visits were going to
be set up but ultimately were not because:
"What happened, I had to go in the visiting room to fill
out some papers, and they were saying, [y]ou can't hold
your kids. They got to be on this side of the table. The kids
cannot get up and then act, and I thought *** that would be
unjust because they [are] little boys because little boys,
and they gonna run around, so that would cause problems
between me and them."
Respondent
testified that, while in prison, he completed a parenting
class in May 2017. Respondent has not been incarcerated since
September 2017.
¶
23 The State next called Ava de Groh, a caseworker from
Lutheran Social Services of Illinois (LSSI or agency), who
had been assigned to this case on December 28, 2015. At that
time, the permanency goal for the three boys was return home
within 12 months.
¶
24 Regarding Janica M., de Groh testified that prior to
reunification, she needed to complete anger management and
Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics Anonymous (NA/AA) and that
because she was inconsistent with her sessions, de Groh never
found any satisfactory ratings for the mother. Janica M. was
only rated satisfactory in parenting coaching, and that was
due to the fact that parenting coaching was done at Janica
M.'s home during visits. De Groh testified that she did
not recommend unsupervised visits with the mother because she
failed to complete anger management and NA/AA and still had a
continued recommendation of parenting coaching. She also
testified that the permanency goal for the twins was changed
to termination of parental rights because Janica M. was
inconsistent with her visits, discharged unsuccessfully from
NA/AA and anger management, and still needed a parenting
coach. The mother was found unsatisfactory for visitation
because she did not attend a majority of the visits with Ja.
A. De Groh testified that the eventual change in permanency
goal to termination of parental rights for Ja. A. was largely
on the same basis as the twins. De Groh was unable to get in
contact with the mother after October or November 2016.
¶
25 De Groh then turned her testimony to respondent. She
stated that as of January 2016, respondent only needed
parenting coaching prior to the children being able to return
home. She stated that she would have ranked respondent as
satisfactory for parenting coaching from January through
April 2016 because the services were conducted in his home
during visits and that, in May 2016, LSSI was still
recommending a goal of return home within 12 months for the
children. De Groh explained that the rating would have
changed after May 2016 for two reasons-the parenting coach
abruptly left the agency and respondent was incarcerated in
September 2016, which was when the new parenting coach began
work at the agency. De Groh testified that respondent's
visits were always supervised and there was never a
recommendation for unsupervised visits with all three
children. When given the choice, respondent selected
supervised visits within the agency "so that way if
there was any concerns or issues or if there was any signs of
distress, he would have support of our agency or another
caseworker with him." During 2016, both mother and
respondent informed de Groh they were seeking reunification
with one another, which was significant because parenting
coaching was combined as a result of their desire to
co-parent.
¶
26 When asked why LSSI recommended a goal change to
termination of parental rights for the twins in October 2016,
de Groh responded that it was based on respondent's
incarceration and his failure to complete parenting coaching.
In July 2016, respondent informed de Groh that he was no
longer seeking reunification with Janica M. As a result,
respondent needed to be reassessed for all services as a
single parent. De Groh testified that near the time of
respondent's incarceration she was able to speak with
respondent regarding the necessary services and informed him
that he would need to complete a substance abuse assessment
and a mental health assessment, engage in individual therapy,
and complete parenting coaching and parent education. When
recommending the goal change to termination, the agency
considered the length of time the children had been in
custody because the twins had been in DCFS care since August
2013 and Ja. A. had been in DCFS care since August 2015. De
Groh testified that respondent sent a letter to her
supervisor while incarcerated asking about visits with the
children and his status regarding services.
¶
27 De Groh testified that the agency recommended a change in
permanency goal to termination of parental rights for Ja. A.
in March 2017 based on respondent's inconsistencies prior
to incarceration, the incarceration itself, and that services
were still needed. Respondent called de Groh in September
2017 to inform her that he was out of prison and asked when
visits would start. De Groh stated that from the time she
became the family's caseworker in 2015, respondent never
sent her any items of value, cards, gifts or similar items,
or letters for the children.
¶
28 On cross-examination, De Groh testified that respondent
had parenting coaching through LSSI from May 2014 through
March 2016. There were concerns about respondent's
ability to meet the three children's needs alone if he
was not with Janica M. De Groh elaborated on a visit she
observed during which Janica M. was sick and respondent was
trying to "keep up" and play with all three
children, while also trying to address Ja. A.'s needs,
because he was still a baby at that point. Respondent had a
difficult time getting the children to comply with what he
was asking, getting them to take a nap, and making sure they
were playing safely and appropriately. Specifically, when the
twins were supposed to take a nap, respondent "would
just place the twins on the bed, put a blanket on them and
leave the room." The twins would then get up and run
around. De Groh testified that she met with respondent on
October 13, 2017, informed him that he needed a mental health
assessment and a substance abuse assessment, and provided him
a list of community providers that could do those
assessments. LSSI does not pay for services once the goal is
changed to termination of parental rights. Although
respondent informed de Groh that he scheduled an appointment
for an intake assessment, she was never able to verify that
he actually made the appointment. Respondent never informed
her that he completed either assessment.
¶
29 De Groh testified that from December 2015 until August
2016, the same visitation plan was in place-one visit per
week with all three children in the parents' home and one
visit per week with only Ja. A. at the agency. During the
visit when Janica M. was ill and respondent was primarily
responsible for caring for all three boys, de Groh described
him as "exhausted" after the visit. Respondent and
Janica M. did not consistently attend the weekly visit with
Ja. A. at the agency. Specifically, respondent only attended
one or two visits per month with Ja. A. during the
aforementioned nine-month period. Between August 2016 and
November 2017, respondent did not visit with the children. De
Groh testified that during one of the visits with respondent,
she was concerned because she observed respondent give
chicken wings with bones in them-a choking hazard-to the
twins, who were then around three years old. However, she
also observed respondent feed Ja. A. with appropriate foods
and change diapers. De Groh stated that when she prompted
respondent with suggestions, he followed her advice. Since he
was released from prison, respondent visited with the
children five times but did not bring little gifts or food
for the children during any visits. The children's foster
parents were also present during these visits. During those
five visits, although all three children were present,
respondent was more engaged with Ja. A. De Groh testified
that at the time of her testimony she would not recommend
unsupervised visits between respondent and the three boys
because she observed Ja. A. being very standoffish with
respondent and would not look at him. The twins were also
resistant to interacting with respondent.
¶
30 De Groh stated that in August 2016, when respondent
informed her that he was no longer with Janica M., she
recommended all services for him as single parent, which
included parent coaching, a substance abuse assessment,
mental health assessment and individual therapy, and parent
education. De Groh testified that the parenting goal was
changed one month after respondent became incarcerated, when
de Groh learned that respondent would not be discharged from
prison until September 2018, though he was actually
discharged in September 2017. De Groh stated that her agency
recommended that the three boys not visit respondent while he
was incarcerated because it could be a "stressor"
for them. She further testified that respondent contacted her
when he was released from prison in September 2017, but the
first visit was not until November 2017.
¶
31 The State rested after calling respondent and de Groh as
witnesses and introducing 10 client services plans and 2
integrated assessments (IAs)[3] into evidence. Family service
plans are prepared every six months. Further, de Groh
explained that an IA is a very thorough assessment prepared
by a clinician that contains information regarding the
...