People v. Brooke R. (In re Ah. R.)

1

2023 IL App (4th) 230167-U

In re Ah. R., a Minor

The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Brooke R., Respondent-Appellant.

In re Am. R, a Minor

The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Brooke R., Respondent-Appellant.

Nos. 4-23-0167, 4-23-0168

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

July 24, 2023

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 Winnebago County No. 21JA87, No 21JA88 Honorable Francis M. Martinez, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Turner and Lannerd concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

STEIGMANN, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating respondent's parental rights because the court's fitness and best interest findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 Respondent, Brooke R., is the mother of Ah. R. (born March 2019) and Am. R. (born January 2016). The father of Ah. R Ahmed A., is not a party to this appeal. The father of Am. R. is unknown.

¶ 3 In February 2023, the trial court found respondent and the fathers were unfit parents and that termination of their parental rights would be in the minor children's best interests.

¶ 4 Respondent appeals, arguing that the trial court's (1) fitness determinations and (2) best-interest determinations in each case were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree and affirm.

¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 6 A. Procedural History

¶ 7 In March 2021, the State filed separate petitions for adjudication of wardship, alleging that the environment of Ah. R. and Am. R. was injurious to their welfare because respondent and a paramour engaged in acts of domestic violence in the presence of the minors. See 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020). In April 2021, the trial court conducted a shelter care hearing and placed temporary custody and guardianship with the guardianship administrator of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).

¶ 8 In July 2021, the trial court conducted an adjudicatory hearing at which respondent stipulated that domestic violence occurred in the presence of the children. The court found that Ah. R. and Am. R. were neglected minors. At the August 2021 dispositional hearing, the court entered a written order finding that it was in the best interest of Ah. R., Am. R and the public that the minor children be made wards of the court and adjudicated neglected minors. The court further found that the parents were unable for reasons other than financial circumstances alone to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minors and it was in the best interest of the minors to remove them from the custody of respondent. The court placed the minors' guardianship and custody with the guardianship administrator of DCFS.

¶ 9 At that hearing, the trial court admonished respondent that she was required to cooperate with DCFS "and make reasonable efforts and reasonable progress toward correcting conditions that *** led to removal of the *** children." The court further warned respondent that, should she fail to make reasonable efforts and progress, the State would have the authority to seek termination of her parental rights.

¶ 10 B. The Termination Proceedings

¶ 11 In December 2022, the State filed petitions in both cases to terminate respondent's parental rights. The State alleged respondent was an unfit parent because she failed to (1) make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the bases for the removal of the children during the nine-month periods of July 2021 to April 2022 and February 2022 to November 2022; (2) make reasonable progress toward the return of the children within the same nine-month periods; and (3) maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the children's welfare. See 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b), (D)(m)(i), (ii) (West 2020).

¶ 12 1. The Fitness Portion of the Termination Proceedings

¶ 13 In January 2023, the trial court conducted the fitness portion of the termination proceedings. At the State's request, the court took judicial notice of (1) the neglect petitions, (2) the temporary custody order, (3) the adjudicatory order, (4) the dispositional order, and (5) the permanency review orders. At the State's request, and without objection, the court admitted the integrated assessment report and three service plans.

¶ 14 a. Testimony of Mercedes Sanchez

¶ 15 The State called Mercedes Sanchez as its sole witness. Sanchez had been the case supervisor at the Children's Home and Aid Society of Illinois (CHASI) for Am. R. and Ah. R. since October 2021. She had also briefly served as the caseworker. Sanchez testified without objection to the contents of the admitted documents and the observations of her coworkers.

¶ 16 i. The Basis for Removal ¶ 17 Counsel for respondent asked Sanchez why Ah. R. and Am. R. came into care. Sanchez answered that "there were concerns with *** [respondent's] ability to safely parent her kids, as *** she was involved in criminal activity and her house had gotten shot at." Asked whether CHASI had "concerns with domestic violence," Sanchez said, "Based on the history, yes." She clarified that this history was not with Ah. R.'s father but with respondent's "past paramours."

¶ 18 ii. The Service Plans

¶ 19 Sanchez testified that the service plan for respondent was developed after respondent participated in an integrated assessment. Included in such assessments are reviews of a parent's family and childhood history, his or her relationships, and any criminal history. The plan recommended that respondent engage in services relating to (1) substance abuse, (2) domestic violence, (3) parenting, and (4) individual counseling.

¶ 20 iii. Communication with Respondent

¶ 21 Sanchez testified that communications with respondent had been irregular. Caseworkers had particular difficulty arranging in-person meetings with respondent. Although CHASI received the case in April 2021, respondent did not meet with CHASI workers until August of that year. CHASI informed respondent of the importance of completing services.

¶ 22 In November 2021, respondent told her caseworker she had moved to Texas. From then on, respondent would tell CHASI when she was in Rockford only after she had arrived. Sanchez said respondent explained her move to Texas as "running away" from people in Rockford who were "looking for her to harm her."

¶ 23 iv. Respondent's Parenting Skills

¶ 24 Sanchez testified that CHASI had concerns about respondent's parenting skills because the infrequency of her visitations meant that the agency had not been able to assess her skills. Respondent's failure to have a substance abuse assessment precluded CHASI's referring her to a parenting class. CHASI would offer a referral only if she were following the recommendations made in the assessment or had enrolled in a substance abuse class. CHASI had no information to suggest respondent had independently enrolled in a parenting class.

¶ 25 v. Respondent's Record of Visitation and Communication with Her Children

¶ 26 Sanchez explained that CHASI wanted respondent to engage in at least one hour a week of visitation with the minors. Respondent's irregular communications and the uncertainty over whether she was in Illinois or Texas made arranging regular visitation impossible. The agency had no objection to visits over Zoom, FaceTime, or similar apps and, in the spring of 2022, had discussed the possible use of the apps with respondent.

¶ 27 CHASI workers had asked respondent why she was not calling her children regularly. Respondent said there was no reason. Nonetheless, months would go by without her calling either child. In September 2022, respondent started having FaceTime visits with Ah. R. However, respondent made such visits only sporadically. These visits were permitted when someone was present to supervise. Sanchez had supervised video visits between respondent and Ah. R., who called respondent "Mom."

¶ 28 CHASI learned through the children's caregivers that respondent would come to Rockford and visit Am. R. without notifying CHASI. She sometimes visited Am. R. but not Ah. R. The only instances of respondent's providing food or gifts that CHASI were aware of included (1) when respondent sent ice cream to Am. R. by DoorDash and (2) when respondent had given clothing to Am. R.

¶ 29 Respondent never had overnight visits with the children and never progressed to unsupervised visitation ¶ 30 b. Respondent's Testimony

¶ 31 Respondent testified that in November 2021, she moved in with a friend in Dallas, Texas. In April 2022, without notifying CHASI, she moved in with a cousin in Spring, Texas. Respondent explained her move to Texas as follows:

"I didn't feel like I was safe in Rockford, and I wanted to show that I was willing to leave everybody and everything to get my kids back. I left everybody I knew, all my friends, and just started clean. And I've kept a job since I've moved out there."

On cross-examination, she further stated, "I had a crazy boyfriend who couldn't let go and kicked in my door a week before I left, so I didn't want him to find me. I just wanted to get away from everything."

¶ 32 After moving to Texas, respondent had returned to Rockford seven times, usually for a week at a time. She saw Am. R. at least once each time she visited. Prior to starting Zoom visits in September 2022, respondent had spent no more than 11 hours with Am. R. and visited Ah. R. only once.

¶ 33 Respondent testified that virtual visitation had not been offered to her until September 2022 and did not...