In re A.R.

225 N.E.3d 678

2023 IL App (1st) 220700

IN RE A.R., Minor-Appellee,

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

v.Isabel R., Respondent-Appellant.) No. 1-22-0700

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

Filed January 26, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Juvenile Justice and Child Protection Department, Child Protection Division, No, 16 JA 468, Honorable Andrea Buford, Judge, Presiding.

Sharone R. Mitchell Jr., Public Defender, of Chicago (Marsha Watt, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Victoria L. Kennedy, and Gina DiVito, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellees.

Charles P. Golbert, Public Guardian, of Chicago (Carrie Fung, of counsel), guardian ad litem.

OPINION

JUSTICE MARTIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Respondent, Isabel R., appeals from trial court’s orders terminating her parental rights and granting the State the power to consent to the adoption of respondent’s minor child, A.R. Following prolonged adjudicatory and dispositional hearings, the trial court found Isabel unfit to parent A.R. pursuant to two separate statutory grounds of the Adoption Act: (1) failure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal and/or failure to make reasonable efforts toward reunification during certain specific nine-month periods; and (2) inability to discharge parental responsibilities supported by competent evidence of mental impairment, mental illness, or an intellectual or developmental disability. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m), (p) (West 2020). The trial court terminated Isabel R.’s parental rights and placed A.R. in the guardianship of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) with the right to consent to adoption.

¶ 2 Isabel argues that the court’s determination as to each statutory ground was against the manifest weight of the evidence. She contends that the court erred when it found DCFS made reasonable efforts to effectuate the goals of its service plan, as the record demonstrates that the services provided to her were inadequate considering her language barriers, individual needs, and disability. Isabel alternatively asserts that there was insufficient evidence to find her unfit where she made meaningful progress in services despite DCFS’s inadequate service offerings. She asks that we reverse the trial court’s findings and order of termination. We affirm.¹

[1] ¶ 3 Initially, we note that this appeal was accelerated pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a) (eff. July 1, 2018). Pursuant to that rule, the appellate court must, except for good cause shown, issue its decision in an accelerated case within 150 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 311(a)(5) (eff. July 1, 2018). Here, Isabel filed her notice of appeal on May 19, 2022. Thus, the record on appeal was due in this court on June 23, 2022, and our disposition was due on October 17, 2022. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 311(a)(4), (5) (eff. July 1, 2018). On July 18, 2022, Isabel’s counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file the appellant brief. On August 16, 2022, appellees’ counsel filed their first of two motions for extension of time to file the appellee brief. Thereafter, on. October 7, 2022, Isabel’s counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file her reply brief. The case became ready on October 17, 2022. We find these reasons to constitute good cause for this decision to issue after the timeframe mandated in Rule 311(a).

¶ 4 I. JURISDICTION

¶ 5 The circuit court ordered the termination of Isabel’s parental rights on October 26, 2021. Isabel timely filed a motion for new trial, which the court denied on April 25, 2022. On May 19, 2022, Isabel filed a timely notice of appeal. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and Rule 303(a) (eff. July 1, 2017), governing appeals from a final judgment of a circuit court in a civil case.

¶ 6 II. BACKGROUND

¶ 7 A.R. was born to then 17-year-old Isabel on April 1, 2016. Isabel, who was sexually abused by a man² nearly thrice her age, was unaware that she was pregnant until the day prior to A.R.’s birth. Based upon comments Isabel made while in labor and shortly after giving birth, hospital personnel questioned her ability to safely parent A.R.³ Following her birth, A.R. was found to have abnormal findings on a standard newborn blood test and was thereafter diagnosed with enterococcus urinary tract infection, hypotonia, ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency, feeding intolerance, lens opacity, and small gestational age. Ultimately, A.R. was diagnosed with a rare mitochondrial disorder, Leigh’s disease.⁴ A.R. requires an extensive 24-hour specialized care plan, has a feeding tube, is on a daily medication regimen, and receives early intervention services including speech, developmental, and occupational therapies and hippotherapy.

¶ 8 On May 23, 2016, A.R. was taken into custody by DCFS. On May 25, 2016, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship and motion for temporary custody, alleging that A.R. was without proper care because of the physical or mental disability of her parent (705 ILCS 405/2-4(1)(b) (West 2016)). Specifically, the State noted that Isabel, who was unaware that she was pregnant until she gave birth, is cognitively delayed and has been diagnosed with a learning disability. It further noted that A.R. was born with special needs and is medically complex, requiring medical follow-up and a specific daily schedule to address her needs, The motion was supported by an affidavit from DCFS investigator Celmira Bolanos-Ayala, who averred that Isabel did not receive prenatal care during her pregnancy and showed no initial interest in parenting A.R. Bolanos-Ayala attested that school staff had informed her that Isabel functions at a second or third grade level. Further, A.R. has several medical conditions requiring appointments and specific measuring of her formula due to a, genetic condition. Bolanos-Ayala further averred that Isabel’s mother has special needs, is illiterate, works the third shift, and that Isabel was sexually abused on at least three occasions while in her care. Lastly, Bolanos-Ayala concluded that—due to Isabel’s cognitive delays and A.R.’s complex medical issues—reasonable efforts could not prevent or eliminate the necessity of removing A.R. from Isabel’s home. Based on the facts alleged in the petition, the circuit court issued an order granting temporary custody of A.R. to the DCFS guardianship administrator.

¶ 9 The State amended the petition on June 2, 2016, alleging that A.R. was abused and neglected pursuant to sections 2-3(1)(b) and 2-3(2)(ii) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (id. § 2-3(1)(b), 2-3(2)(ii)). The following day, the court held a contested temporary custody hearing regarding A.R. At the conclusion of this hearing, the court again granted temporary custody of A.R. to DCFS. Isabel subsequently filed a motion to compel visitation. On June 27, 2016, the court ordered that a written visitation plan was to be tendered to all parties and that DCFS must immediately implement the visitation plan and refer Isabel for parent coaching. On October. 3, 2016, the court amended the temporary custody order, nunc pm tunc to June 3, 2016.

¶ 10 In separate proceedings, the State also filed a petition for adjudication of wardship for Isabel alleging that, pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act, Isabel was abused or neglected. Following an adjudication hearing on October 7, 2016, the court found that Isabel was abused and neglected (lack of care and injurious environment) pursuant to sections 23(1)(a) and 23(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act (id. § 2-3(1)(a), (b)). She was subsequently placed with a foster family.

¶ 11 A. Adjudication Hearing

¶ 12 On October 5, 2017, the court held a hearing on the State’s petition for adjudication of wardship. Isabel stipulated to the evidence provided at the hearing, including voluminous educational and medical records from Rolling Meadows High School, Carl Sandburg School, Lurie Children’s Hospital, and Northwest Community Hospital. The parties stipulated to the testimony of Bolanos-Ayala, who would testify she was assigned to investigate allegation number 60 (substantial risk of physical injury/environment injurious to health and welfare by neglect) involving A.R. On April 2, 2016, Isabel told Bolanos-Ayala that (1) she had no idea she was pregnant and never felt the baby, (2) she lives with her mother in a two-bedroom apartment with four other adults (including three men), (3) she did not want to go home with A.R. and learn to care for her because she did not want to leave her mother’s side, and (4) that A.R. could go live with her attorney and she would visit. Bolanos-Ayala would additionally testify that Elvira S., Isabel’s mother, stated she was unaware Isabel was pregnant, and that while she had noticed approximately two weeks prior that Isabel had not gotten her menstrual cycle, she did not take her to the doctor because her medical card was cancelled. Further, Elvira related that, in February 2016, she took Isabel to the pediatrician because she was vomiting. The pediatrician recommended a urine test, but Isabel was unable to give a sample. Elvira never brought Isabel back to the pediatrician.

¶ 13 The parties additionally stipulated to the testimony of DCFS child protection investigator Jessica Furio, who had a conversation with Isabel on April 5, 2016. Isabel told Furio that she (1) did not want to move out of her mother’s home, (2) wanted parenting classes, (3) did not feel comfortable holding A.R., and (4) did not want to keep A.R. Lastly, the parties stipulated to the testimony of Rolling Meadows police...