People v. Antwon W. (In re T.E.)

2019 IL App (4th) 190593-U

In re T.E., a Minor

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Antwon W., Respondent-Appellant).

In re X.E., a Minor

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Antwon W., Respondent-Appellant).

NO. 4-19-0593

NO. 4-19-0594 cons.

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

December 20, 2019

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 the Circuit Court of Macon County

No. 17JA199

No. 17JA227

Honorable Thomas E. Little, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Cavanagh and Harris concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court's findings respondent was unfit under section 1(D)(i) of the Adoption Act and it was in the minor children's best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 In September 2018, the State filed motions for the termination of the parental rights of respondent, Antwon W., as to his minor children, T.E. (born in July 2008) and X.E. (born in December 2010). After an April 2019 hearing, the Macon County circuit court found respondent unfit as alleged in the termination motions. At an August 2019 hearing, the court found it was in the minor children's best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights.

¶ 3 Respondent appeals, asserting the circuit court erred by (1) finding him unfit and (2) concluding it was in the minor children's best interests to terminate his parental rights. We affirm.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 T.E. and X.E.'s mother is Dionica E., who is not a party to this appeal. In October 2017, the State filed petitions for the adjudication of wardship of the minor children. Those petitions alleged the minor children were neglected pursuant to sections 2-3(1)(b) and 2-3(1)(d) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b), 2-3(1)(d) (West 2016)) and abused under section 2-3(2)(ii) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(2)(ii) (West 2016)). The allegations were based on a September 2, 2017, incident in which Dionica and her paramour, Michael D., were not supervising T.E. and X.E., and X.E. suffered second-degree burns over 32% of his body. T.E. witnessed the incident, and a passerby had to put out the fire on X.E. At the time of the incident, Dionica was on conditional discharge for a misdemeanor domestic battery. One of the requirements of her conditional discharge was to have no contact directly or indirectly with Michael or go to his residence. A safety plan had also been put into place with similar provisions. Despite the court order and safety plan, Dionica continued to have contact with Michael.

¶ 6 In T.E.'s case (case No. 17-JA-199), respondent and Dionica did not attend the October 2017 adjudicatory hearing, and the circuit court found them in default. The court entered a written adjudicatory order finding T.E. neglected and abused as alleged in the petition. It also entered a written dispositional order, in which it found respondent and Dionica were unfit and unable to care for T.E., made T.E. a ward of the court, and placed his custody and guardianship with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).

¶ 7 In X.E.'s case (case No. 17-JA-227), respondent did not attend the December 2017 adjudicatory hearing, but Dionica did. Dionica stipulated X.E. was neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2016)), and the circuit court dismissed the other two counts. The court entered a written adjudicatory order finding X.E. neglected. The court held the dispositional hearing in January 2018, and respondent again did not attend. After the hearing, the court entered a written dispositional order in which it found respondent and Dionica were unfit and unable to care for X.E., made X.E. a ward of the court, and placed his custody and guardianship with DCFS. The order noted respondent was on the Violent Offender Against Youth Registry for abusing X.E. and T.E.

¶ 8 In January 2019, the State filed motions to terminate respondent's parental rights to the minor children. The motions asserted respondent was unfit because he (1) failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minor children's welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2018)), (2) was depraved in that he had been convicted of aggravated battery of a child (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i) (West 2018)), (3) was depraved because he had been convicted of three felonies (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(i) (West 2018)), (4) failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of the minor children from him within nine months after the neglect and/or abuse adjudication (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2018)), (5) failed to make reasonable progress toward the minor children's return to him within nine months after the neglect and/or abuse adjudication, specifically October 10, 2017, to July 10, 2018 (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2018)), and (6) failed to make reasonable progress toward the minor children's return to him within nine months after the neglect and/or abuse adjudication, specifically April 18, 2018, to January 18, 2019 (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2018)). The State also sought termination of Dionica's parental rights.

¶ 9 On April 15, 2019, the circuit court commenced the fitness hearing. The State presented the testimony of (1) Christina Walters, a DCFS Medicaid therapist for Youth Advocate; (2) Christine Foster, a parenting teacher for Youth Advocate; (3) Dawn McCoy, a supervised visits specialist and family interventionist with Youth Advocate; and (4) Lacey Smith, a DCFS child welfare specialist. The State also presented certified copies of respondent's three felony convictions, the most recent of which occurred in 2015.

¶ 10 Walters testified she was Dionica's therapist and did not have any contact with respondent. Foster and McCoy also testified they had no interaction with respondent.

¶ 11 Smith testified she had been the caseworker for the minor children's case since September 2017. Smith noted respondent did attend the shelter care hearing and was aware a case had been opened. Sometime before March 2018, Smith contacted respondent by telephone. Respondent was on parole at the time. He had been arrested and put on the Violent Offender Against Youth Registry. Respondent told Smith he believed he was not allowed to have any communication with T.E. and X.E. Respondent's parole ended in July 2018. After their conversation, Smith sent him letters notifying him of court dates and family meetings in this case. In the letters, she also asked respondent to contact her to set up a time to meet. Respondent did appear at the last court date where he was arraigned. Smith also spoke with respondent on February 14, 2019. He told her he had received the letters but was hesitant in reaching out to her because he did not want to mess up Dionica getting the children back. Respondent had yet to complete the integrated assessment, and thus Smith had been unable to assess the services he needed. Given respondent's history, Smith believed it would take longer than six to nine months for respondent to make satisfactory progress in the services for the minor children to be returned to him.

¶ 12 After hearing the parties' arguments, the circuit court found respondent unfit on all grounds alleged in the petition. The court also found Dionica unfit.

¶ 13 On August 26, 2019, the circuit court held the best-interests hearing. The State presented the testimony of Smith and Adrianna Stevenson, a caseworker at Camelot Care Centers. The guardian ad litem also called Smith as a witness. Additionally, the circuit court considered the best interest report filed in May 2019.

¶ 14 Smith testified DCFS had reached out to respondent throughout the case. However, respondent did not show any initiative to engage in services. Smith testified she believed respondent's parole prevented him from visiting the minor children and he had not seen them since they came into care. Smith also believed respondent had not seen the children for even longer because respondent had been incarcerated for abusing T.E. Smith had not observed any interaction between respondent and the minor children. She also testified respondent had not engaged in any services. Given the fact respondent was on a violent offender registry for his actions against T.E., Smith did not know how long it would take respondent to regain fitness if he immediately engaged in services.

¶ 15 Stevenson testified she was the caseworker for the minor children. X.E. was placed in a foster home with a half sibling, who is not part of this appeal, and T.E. was in a residential facility because of behavioral problems. T.E. exhibited severe physical and verbal aggression towards female staff and peers. He was receiving counseling and taking medication to address his behaviors. Stevenson had not seen T.E. act out against Dionica during visits with her. According to Stevenson, T.E. was doing better in treatment because he had fewer outbursts. He was also getting along better with his peers and adults and was using his coping skills. Stevenson and the treatment staff were discussing T.E.'s discharge from the facility. Stevensonwas working on a relative placement for T.E. upon discharge. The relative was a possible permanent placement for him. Stevenson noted the relative would need to obtain training on how to deal with children with behavioral problems.

¶ 16 X.E. was in a prospective adoptive placement and was doing well there. X.E. had been in the home for a year and half and was "well bonded" with his foster family. He attended church with his foster family and engaged in family activities such as vacations and outings.

¶ 17 As to respondent, Stevenson had not observed any visits...