People v. B.P. (In re D.P.)

1

2024 IL App (1st) 231530-U

In re D.P., a Minor,

The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. B.P., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 1-23-1530

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Second Division

January 25, 2024

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 21 JA 959 Honorable Patrick T. Murphy, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Howse and Justice Ellis concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

MCBRIDE JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The trial court's order terminating respondent father B.P.'s parental rights as to D.P. is affirmed where the trial court's finding of parental unfitness was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 Respondent B.P. appeals the trial court's order finding him to be unfit under section 50/1(D)(b), (m), and (n) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b), (m), (n) (West 2020)) and terminating his parental rights over D.P., his minor son. He argues that the trial court's finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) he had failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to D.P.'s welfare in violation of section 1(D)(b) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020)) and section 2-29 of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-29 (West 2020)); (2) he had failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of D.P. and reasonable progress toward the return of D.P. under section 1(D)(m) (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West 2020)) and section 2-29 (705 ILCS 405/2-29 (West 2020)); and (3) he had demonstrated an intent to forego his parental rights by failing to visit or communicate with D.P. or the agency under section 1(D)(n) (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(n) (West 2020)) and section 2-29 (705 ILCS 405/2-29 (West 2020)).

¶ 3 Respondent is the natural father of the minor D.P., born on January 18, 2020.^[1] On October 19, 2021, the State filed a petition for the adjudication of wardship of D.P. and named both parents. The petition alleged that D.P. was neglected under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) because he was not receiving the proper and necessary support for his wellbeing and due to an injurious environment (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a), (b) (West 2020)) and abused under the Juvenile Court Act because his parents created a substantial risk of physical injury to such minor by other than accidental means which would be likely to cause death disfigurement, impairment of emotional health, or loss or impairment of any bodily function (id. § 2-3(2)(ii)). The supporting facts for both allegations stated:

"Mother has one prior indicated report for substance misuse. Mother has four other minors who were in DCFS custody in Winnebago County with findings having been entered. Putative father is the parent of three of those minors. On or about August 8, 2021 the family's apartment was observed to be dirty with a strong odor of urine and feces emitting from the home. The sofa cushions were observed to be soaked with urine and there were bags of garbage in the floor which contained dirty adult diapers. Maggots were observed in the corner of the floor. On September 1, 2021 a safety plan was created and then subsequently modified on two separate occasions after it was violated. Mother would return to the family's apartment with this minor each time the safety plan was violated. Putative father admits that earlier this year he overdosed after he had ingested marijuana which had been laced with fentanyl. Putative father states that this minor was present during this incident. Putative father refuses to participate in a random drug test. Mother tested positive for cocaine on or about September 13, 2021. Mother denies using illegal substances. On October 11, 2021 putative father was involved in a physical altercation with another adult. Mother attempted to intervene in this altercation and was injured. This minor was present during this altercation. On October 12, 2021 putative father was shot right outside the family's residence after he was involved in altercation with another adult. This minor was present in the home when putative father was shot. Parents reside together and paternity has not been established."

¶ 4 On October 29, 2021, the court entered a paternity order finding that respondent is the father of D.P. On February 22, 2022, the trial court entered an adjudication order and found D.P. was abused or neglected based on an injurious environment because the "agency tried to assist mother, agency did what they could do, mother and child not living with father, mother saw father shot outside his abode, mother injured in other incident with father and minor." On April 20, 2022, the court entered the disposition order adjudging D.P. a ward of the court and finding both J.B. and respondent were unable for some reason other than financial circumstances alone to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minor. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) was named the guardian administrator. The permanency order entered on April 20, 2022, indicated that the permanency goal was return home within 12 months. The order also noted that D.P. was "thriving in his current placement. Mother's whereabouts have been unknown since December 2021. Father was recently released from jail (March 2022). The agency will refer father to additional services. Father is currently visiting."

¶ 5 The next permanency order from September 2022 indicated a goal of return home pending status hearing and that neither parent had made substantial progress. The reasons for this goal stated, "The parents' current whereabouts are unknown. The parents are not participating in reunification services or visits. [D.P.] is placed in a home where he can achieve permanency. [D.P.] is participating in developmental services and is thriving in placement." The December 2022 permanency order changed the permanency goal to substitute care pending court determination on termination of parental rights. The reasons for this goal stated that D.P. was thriving in a preadoptive home and the parents were not involved in services or visitation with their whereabouts unknown.

¶ 6 In February 2023, the State filed its petition for the termination of parental rights for both parents and alleged they were unfit under grounds (a), (b), (c), (m), and (n) of the Adoption Act. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(a), (b), (c), (m), and (n) (West 2020). The State also filed a pleading specifying the nine-month time period for ground (m) under the Adoption Act was March 20, 2022, through December 20, 2022. Id. §1(D)(m). On June 30, 2023, the court entered a default order against J.B. for want of appearance.

¶ 7 On August 18, 2023, the trial court conducted the termination hearing with respondent present in person and represented by counsel. The following evidence was adduced at the hearing.

¶ 8 Maurquisha Williamson testified that she was employed as a caseworker with DCFS and was assigned to D.P.'s case in September 2022. Respondent was referred for services, including parenting capacity assessment, parent coaching, substance abuse treatment, domestic violence, and individual therapy. When she was first assigned to the case, respondent's whereabouts were unknown until she was informed in court that he was incarcerated. When asked if respondent had participated in any of the referred services, Williamson responded not to her knowledge.

¶ 9 Prior to April 2023, respondent's whereabouts were unknown and DCFS performed diligent searches for him. Williamson was given two addresses, she went to both locations, and both were abandoned. She was also given six different telephone numbers and she tried calling each number. She was aware that respondent had some visits with D.P., but prior to April 2023, the last visit was in June or July 2022. Respondent had never been granted unsupervised visitation and no recommendation had been made to have unsupervised visitation because respondent was not involved in services, visits were inconsistent, and communication with the caseworker was also inconsistent. Prior to April 2023, Williamson testified that to the best of her knowledge no cards, gifts, or letters were sent to D.P. by respondent. Williamson was unaware of any reason preventing respondent from contacting the agency prior to April 2023.

¶ 10 Williamson's last contact with respondent was a supervised virtual visit with D.P. on August 7, 2023, which was the only virtual visit that occurred since April 2023. Once she had contact with respondent, Williamson talked to him about efforts to comply with services and visitation. He told her that he was active in a parenting class while incarcerated, but Williamson had not received any documentation for this class. She was not aware that respondent engaged in domestic violence classes, substance abuse classes, or anger management classes.

¶ 11 Williamson was aware that respondent was in the Cook County Department of Corrections since at least April 2023. She attempted to reach out to respondent by calling the jail. She was informed that in-person visitation with a child was not available due to Covid, but she was told about the virtual visit option. She then staffed the virtual visit on August 7, 2023. Since December 2022, the agency has not considered a request for a change in the permanency goal to return home because respondent was not consistent in the case with both services and visits.

¶ 12 Respondent testified that he had been incarcerated in the Cook County...