Addison R. v. Megan Z. (In re ADDISON R.)

2013 IL App (2d) 121318

989 N.E.2d 224

370 Ill.Dec. 836

In re ADDISON R., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner–Appellee, v. Megan Z., Respondent–Appellant (Rodney R., Respondent)).

No. 2–12–1318.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

March 21, 2013.

Michael W. Raridon, Rockford, for appellant.

Joseph P. Bruscato, State's Attorney, Rockford (Lawrence M. Bauer, Matthew J. Schmidt, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Justice ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

[370 Ill.Dec. 837]¶ 1 Respondent-mother, Megan Z., appeals from the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her daughter, Addison R. Respondent-father, Rodney R., ultimately consented to Addison's adoption by a paternal aunt; he is not a party to this appeal. Respondent-mother argues only that the trial court's finding that she was unfit was against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Addison was born on April 25, 2008. From July 21, 2009, until June 1, 2010, Addison and her parents were involved in “intact services” managed by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Addison initially came to DCFS's attention on July 5, 2009, when it received a hotline telephone call about domestic violence between respondent-mother and respondent-father, during which respondent-father “beat up [respondent-mother] in the presence of their daughter.” Respondent-mother also had a long-term cocaine addiction. DCFS instituted a safety plan under which respondent-mother and respondent-father voluntarily placed Addison with a paternal aunt, Tongela ¹ W. During Addison's placement with Tongela, respondent-mother engaged in mental-health and substance-abuse treatment programs.

¶ 4 According to a report from the Children's Home and Aid agency (the child welfare agency working with DCFS), respondent-mother was “close” to having Addison returned home when she was arrested on March 1, 2010, following a police chase through three counties. During the chase, respondent-mother backed her vehicle into a police detective. Respondent-mother pleaded guilty and was convicted of aggravated battery to a police officer, a Class 1 felony, in De Kalb County (No. 10–CF–167), and was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. Respondent-mother was also convicted, following guilty pleas, of aggravated fleeing, a Class 4 felony, in both Winnebago County (No. 10–CF–693) and Kane County (No. 10–CF–568). She was sentenced to one year and two years' imprisonment, respectively, to be served concurrently with the De Kalb County sentence.

¶ 5 On May 14, 2010, the State filed a three-count petition in the circuit court of Winnebago County, alleging that Addison was a neglected minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/1–1 et seq. (West 2010)). Count I alleged that Addison was neglected based on an environment injurious to her welfare in that her parents engaged in domestic violence in her presence, thus placing her at risk of harm. Counts II and III alleged neglect based on an injurious environment in that respondent-mother and respondent-father, respectively, each had a substance abuse problem that prevented proper parenting, thus placing Addison at risk of harm.

¶ 6 On June 1, 2010, the trial court conducted a shelter care hearing. The court entered an order finding probable cause to believe that Addison was neglected and granting temporary guardianship and custody to DCFS.

¶ 7 On September 9, 2010, the trial court conducted an adjudicatory hearing, at which respondent-father stipulated to the facts alleged in count I of the petition. Respondent-mother agreed to respondent-father's stipulation. The court found that there was a factual basis supporting the plea. The court entered an order adjudicating Addison a neglected minor and dismissing counts II and III on the State's motion.

¶ 8 Three permanency review hearings followed. On March 8, 2011, the trial court found that respondent-mother had made reasonable efforts to follow the service plan and achieve the goal of return home within 12 months. The court made no finding as to respondent-mother's progress. The court maintained the goal at return home within 12 months. On August 30, 2011, the court again found that respondent-mother had made reasonable efforts. However, the court found that she had not made reasonable progress because of an alleged infraction of prison rules in May 2011 when contraband (pills) was found in her cell. The court continued the goal at return home within 12 months. On November 29, 2011, the court once more found reasonable efforts but no reasonable progress by respondent-mother. The court changed the goal to substitute care pending termination of parental rights. The court also granted DCFS leave to place Addison with Tongela in Georgia, which occurred on December 18, 2011.

[370 Ill.Dec. 839]¶ 9 On February 17, 2012, the State filed a motion for termination of parental rights, alleging that respondent-mother was unfit due to: count I, failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to Addison's welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2010)); count II, depravity (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i) (West 2010)); count III, failure to make reasonable progress toward Addison's return during the initial nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2010)); count IV, failure to make reasonable progress toward Addison's return during any subsequent nine-month period (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(iii) (West 2010)); and count V, repeated incarceration preventing her from discharging her parental responsibilities (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(s) (West 2010)).

¶ 10 Section 2–29 of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2–29 (West 2010)) provides a two-step process for termination of parental rights. In re J.L., 236 Ill.2d 329, 337, 338 Ill.Dec. 435, 924 N.E.2d 961 (2010). The trial court must first find by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit as defined in section 1 of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2010)). 705 ILCS 405/2–29(2), (4) (West 2010); J.L., 236 Ill.2d at 337, 338 Ill.Dec. 435, 924 N.E.2d 961. Then, the court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of the parent's rights is in the child's best interests. 705 ILCS 405/2–29(2) (West 2010); In re Julian K., 2012 IL App (1st) 112841, ¶ 63, 359 Ill.Dec. 419, 966 N.E.2d 1107.

¶ 11 On June 8, 2012, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the unfitness portion of the State's motion to terminate parental rights. At the outset of the hearing, respondent-father consented to Addison's adoption by Tongela. (Addison was still living with her in Georgia.) The State called the two caseworkers involved, who introduced the service plans they had created for respondent-mother and testified regarding her efforts and progress. The court admitted the State's exhibits 4, 5, and 6, which were certified copies of respondent-mother's convictions from De Kalb County, Winnebago County, and Kane County, respectively.

¶ 12 Respondent-mother testified on her own behalf. She said that her felony convictions were all based on “the same incident” on March 1, 2010. Respondent-mother explained that the incident began when she ingested $400 worth of cocaine with her ex-husband in Winnebago County. At some point after that, respondent-mother was driving. Although she could not recall why, she knew that police in Winnebago County tried to stop her and that she refused to do so. Respondent-mother drove into De Kalb County, where she hit a residential trailer. A police detective attempted to prevent respondent-mother from leaving that scene. Respondent-mother started her car and put it in reverse. Respondent-mother continued fleeing into Kane County, where she was eventually stopped sometime during rush hour.

¶ 13 When asked on cross-examination if she hit the detective, respondent-mother replied, “Not exactly.” She acknowledged that she was convicted of aggravated battery for hitting the detective with her car. When asked what happened to the detective, respondent-mother said, “I guess she got injured. I don't know.” Respondent-mother further testified that, at the time of the incident, Addison was in temporary placement with DCFS. She testified that at the time she was not thinking that her conduct could affect her ability to parent Addison.

¶ 14 Respondent-mother testified that, since her imprisonment in April 2010, she had been enrolled in substance abuse treatment known as the Wells program. She had progressed to the second of two levels prior to being discharged from the program as part of her discipline for the contraband incident in May 2011. Respondent-mother explained that prescription pills ² were found in her cell, which she shared with another inmate. She testified that the pills were not hers but that both she and her cellmate were disciplined because neither would admit that the pills were hers. Respondent-mother had since re–enrolled in the Wells program and had had no other infractions during her imprisonment. Respondent-mother further testified that, based on her participation in the Wells program, her original release date of March 1, 2014, had been moved up to July 2, 2013.

¶ 15 Respondent-mother said that her discipline for the contraband incident also included “no contact” visits for six months, meaning that she saw visitors through a glass window and talked to them on a telephone. Her visits with Addison previously had consisted of sitting with Addison at a table or joining her in a play area. Respondent-mother agreed that she told her caseworker not to bring Addison to visit for those six months. She explained that she did not think it would be good for three-year-old Addison to “sit on a phone and talk” for two hours and that Addison was too young to understand the...