In re D.D.

236 N.E.3d 1

2022 IL App (1st) 220410

IN RE D.D., a Minor,

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee,

v.A.C., Respondent-Appellant)

No. 1-22-0410

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SIXTH DIVISION.

Filed December 9, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 19 JA 1373, The Honorable Patrick Murphy, Judge, presiding.

Sharone R. Mitchell Jr., Public Defender, of Chicago (Suzanne A. Isaacson, Assis- tant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Gina DiVito, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for the People.

Charles P. Golbert, Public Guardian, of Chicago (Kass A. Plain, Elise Melrose, of counsel), guardian ad litem.

OPINION

JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Respondent, A.C., appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. The trial court found her to be an unfit parent and found it to be in the best interests of her 10-year-old son, D.D., to terminate A.C.’s parental rights. D.D.’s father is deceased, and D.D. is presently in foster care with his father’s parents, or grandparents, who hope to adopt him. The father’s parents have stated that they will not permit contact with A.C. if they are permitted to adopt. For the following reasons, we reverse.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 I. Parties and Proceedings

¶ 4 A.C. is the mother of D.D., who was born on February 24, 2012. D.D. is presently 10 years old and in the fourth grade. In November 2019, when D.D. was seven years old, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship. On March 11, 2020, a few weeks after he had turned eight years old, the trial court found that he was neglected due to a lack of care and an injurious environment, and he was adjudged a ward of the court. When D.D. was nine years old, the State moved on August 9, 2021, to permanently terminate A.C.’s parental rights and to appoint a guardian with the right to consent to adoption. D.D.’s foster parents, who are also his paternal grandparents, want to adopt him but will not permit him contact with his mother.

¶ 5 The State alleged that A.C. was an unfit mother on three separate grounds: (1) "[f]ailure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the child’s welfare" (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020)) (hereinafter, Ground B), (2) "[f]ailure *** (i) to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child *** during any 9-month period following the adjudication of neglected *** minor *** or (ii) to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent during any 9-month period following the adjudication" (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West 2020)) (hereinafter, Ground M), and (3) "[i]nability to discharge parental responsibilities" due to "mental impairment, mental illness or an intellectual disability" that "extend beyond a reasonable time period" (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(p) (West 2020)) (hereinafter, Ground P). For Ground M, the State chose a nine-month period, beginning on March 14, 2020, and ending on December 24, 2020, when D.D. was eight years old. The nine-month period began two years prior to the termination of A.C.’s parental rights.

¶ 6 The fitness hearing was held via Zoom on January 25, 2022. The State called (1) Dr. Krissie Smith (Dr. Smith), a clinical psychologist, who supervised Dr. Jokae Ingram but had no direct contact with A.C. or D.D.; (2) Dr. Ingram, the psychologist who completed the parenting capacity assessment on September 4, 2020, for A.C., which concluded that A.C. could be an appropriate parent after completion of services; (3) Lashonda Ross, who was involved in clinical staffing but had no direct supervision over this case; (4) Regina Ruffin, who held monthly staff meetings with Deja Smith (Smith), a caseworker; (5) Gabrielle Ellison, who held eight phone therapy sessions with A.C. starting in July 2020, but who terminated that therapy as unsuccessful on September 29, 2020, a few weeks after Dr. Ingram’s September 4, 2020, assessment of appropriateness; (6) Shannon Stewart, a case aide who observed one in-person visit and two virtual visits between mother and child in 2020; (7) Shannon Dolan, who supervised the caseworkers in this case from November 2019 to November 2020, but had little contact with A.C. or D.D.; and (8) Smith, a caseworker who was first assigned to this case in December 2020, when the nine-month period chosen by the State had ended. A.C. testified on her own behalf and called Dr. Mohammed Tarawneh, a psychologist, who conducted a clinical evaluation of A.C. on March 10, 2021, and held weekly therapy sessions with A.C. from March to July 2021. The testimony of all witnesses is described in the section below.

¶ 7 After the evidentiary phase of the fitness hearing was complete, the court and the parties adjourned and returned for final arguments on March 9, 2022. After listening to arguments, the trial court found A.C. unfit, stating:

"In this case, the child was found, not only in a filthy, garbage strewn place with drugs lying around, he didn’t know how to brush his teeth. He wasn’t potty trained. And within a week or two of being sent to live with his uncle, he accomplished these matters."

This finding contradicted the testimony of Dolan, the caseworkers’ supervisor, who testified at the fitness hearing that a report from D.D.’s therapy indicated that, in November 2020, or almost a year after the case came to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), D.D. continued to wear Pull-Ups and sometimes wet himself during the night. The trial court stated that it "found the witnesses, particularly Ms. Ellison to be very, very credible," and the court reiterated Ellison’s conclusion that A.C. had "circular thinking," which precluded A.C. from forming age-appropriate expectations. When asked under which ground it had found unfitness, the trial court replied all three.

¶ 8 After finding unfitness, the trial court proceeded to a best interests hearing. At the best interests hearing, also held on March 9, 2022, two witnesses testified: (1) Smith, the caseworker who had testified previously at the fitness hearing, and (2) M.K., the paternal grandmother and foster mother. Their testimony is also described below in the following section. At the conclusion of the best interests hearing, the trial court found:

"[I]n some ways it’s an easy case and in some ways it’s a difficult case. But, the child was living in deplorable circumstances and was years behind his chronological age when [he] came in. Now, he is participating in all kinds of activities and on the honor roll at school. He shows magnificent improvement.'

It’s clearly in his best interest that I terminate rights and appoint [a guardian] with the right to place."

The court then entered a goal of adoption.

¶ 9 II. Testimony

¶ 10 A. Fitness Hearing

¶ 11 At the start of the Zoom fitness hearing, the following 11 exhibits were admitted without objection: exhibit No. 1, integrated assessment for the minor and family, dated February 5, 2020; exhibits Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, four service plans dated, respectively, January 2, 2020, May 4, 2020, November 10, 2020, and May 18, 2021; exhibit No. 6, juvenile court clinic parenting capacity assessment, completed on September 4, 2020, by Dr. Ingram; exhibit No. 7, records from Advocate Hospital for A.C.; exhibit No. 8, documents from Ellison, A.C.’s phone therapist for two months in 2020; exhibit No. 9, a document, dated May 1, 2021, from Dr. Tarawneh, who held weekly therapy sessions with A.C. from March to July 2021; exhibit No. 10, notes from case aide Stewart; and exhibit No. 11, a document, dated May 29, 2020, by Victoria Woodley, from Metropolitan Family Services.

¶ 12 We provide the testimony in detail below because it shows an almost bewildering array of recommendations, sometimes contradictory, by a shifting assembly of providers and caseworkers.

¶ 13 The first witness called by the State was Dr. Smith, a clinical psychologist, who was associate director of the Cook County Juvenile Court Clinic. The clinic is a partnership between Northwestern University and Cook County. Dr. Smith supervised Dr. Ingram, the psychologist at the clinic who completed A.C.’s parenting capacity assessment, on September 4, 2020. In 2020, after the COVID-19 pandemic began, the clinic switched to remote assessments. In this case, Dr. Ingram was able to observe remotely as A.C., her son, and a caseworker played in-person in a park. Although Dr. Smith reviewed and signed Dr. Ingram’s assessment of A.C., Dr. Smith herself had no interactions with either A.C. or D.D.

¶ 14 Dr. Ingram testified that her first interview of A.C. was on July 2, 2020, via Zoom. Dr. Ingram received and relied on A.C.’s prior medical records, which showed that A.C. had been previously diagnosed with, and hospitalized for, anorexia nervosa, which is an eating disorder. During the July 2, 2020, interview, A.C. told Dr. Ingram that D.D., who was eight years old, needed to wear "Pull-Ups." A.C. believed that D.D. needed to wear Pull-Ups for another couple of years until he was able to judge when he needed to go to the bathroom. Dr. Ingram testified that D.D. was "obviously" developmentally delayed with respect to "potty-training." During the July 2, 2020, interview, A.C. stated that D.D. needed a special diet, that he had missed over 20 days of school back when he was in kindergarten, and that he did not interact with other children in first grade when he was ill.

¶ 15 Dr. Ingram testified that she reviewed D.D.’s medical records and found that, often, medical personnel did not. corroborate A.C.’s reasons for bringing him to the hospital. For example, A.C. reported that D.D. had seizures and that was not corroborated. School records indicated that staff reported that he was unclean and that A.C. had called multiple times regarding what D.D. ate at school and to make sure that he did...