People v. Cassandra C. (In re A.R.)

2022 IL App (3d) 210346

221 N.E.3d 526

468 Ill.Dec. 698

IN RE A.R., a Minor

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

v.Cassandra C., Respondent-Appellant).

Appeal No. 3-21-0346

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Filed May 17, 2022

Rehearing Denied June 24, 2022

JohnPatrick Brown, of Nash Bean Ford & Brown LLP, of Geneseo, for appellant.

Catherine L. Runty, State's Attorney, of Cambridge (Patrick Delfino and Thomas D. Arado, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

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

¶ 1 The State filed a neglect petition on behalf of A.R., alleging that A.R.’s mother, Cassandra C. (respondent), provided an environment injurious to the minor's welfare. After a finding of neglect and a dispositional hearing, the circuit court found respondent unfit to care for A.R. Respondent appeals the court's finding of her dispositional unfitness. We affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On December 21, 2020, the State filed a neglect petition alleging that A.R.’s environment was injurious to welfare because (1) respondent had three "prior indicated reports," (2) respondent had not complied with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) service plan, and (3) respondent had "unresolved mental health issues." The State also alleged "that the legal status" and whereabouts of Ryan R. (whom respondent identified as the putative father) were unknown and that Ryan R. was not part of A.R.’s life. The State contended that these conditions placed A.R. "at risk of harm."

¶ 4 On January 21, 2021, DCFS reported to the court that Ryan R. had been located and his suitability for placement of A.R. was being explored. DCFS also filed a Status Alert stating that visitation between respondent and A.R. was stopped due to safety concerns for the staff. The alert indicated respondent began texting threats to Help at Home, the agency facilitating visitation, and to the DCFS caseworker on January 16. Help at Home received over 100 text messages. The staff member blocked respondent and filed a police report complaining that respondent had threatened the lives of the staff member and her family. The DCFS caseworker received over 500 text messages between Saturday and Tuesday. A report filed January 20, 2021, with the Henry County Sheriff's Department alleged that respondent had threatened to come after the DCFS worker, "rip out the caseworker's throat," " ‘take out’ the caseworker's entire family[,] and kill" the worker. The alert stated there was concern regarding respondent's mental health as she had not had an assessment or taken any steps to address her issues. Although the minor was treated for swollen lymph nodes, respondent refused to accept the diagnosis, obsessed that her child was being abused, and called the health department and threatened staff there. The alert further stated that respondent believed DCFS, the trial court, and law enforcement were "after her" because of a workers’ compensation suit she had filed. Respondent also claimed someone was stealing her mail and following her around town.

¶ 5 On February 10, 2021, at a pretrial hearing, it was noted that Ryan R.’s paternity had been established in Henry County case No. 2015F80 and, while A.R. remained in the temporary custody of DCFS, she had been physically placed with Ryan R. Respondent was not present at that hearing and her counsel did not know her whereabouts. On April 5, 2021, DCFS filed a subsequent status report. It stated that A.R. had been placed with Ryan R. on January 30, 2021, and that the placement had been successful to that point. A.R. was "comfortable ... relaxed and happy" in the home, her needs were being met, and she was attending school and receiving speech services. According to the report, respondent still insisted (1) that there was a connection between DCFS, the trial court, and law enforcement because they were "after her" due to her workers’ compensation suit and (2) that someone was stealing her mail and following her.

¶ 6 The circuit court held an adjudicatory hearing on June 23, 2021. The testimony at the hearing showed DCFS investigators visited respondent's home and conducted at least one welfare check with police officers to determine A.R.’s safety. During their visits, the investigators could not locate respondent but met her son and learned that her electricity had been shut off. Respondent's son told the investigators that he was concerned about his mother's mental health. Once respondent was located, she told the investigators that she believed she was being followed and threatened by unknown persons. She said she would no longer stay at her house because somebody had been flying drones through the vents and there was someone in a crop duster flying over her house and keeping an eye on her. Respondent also reported that she was having problems with a church in Kewanee and that people were harassing her and causing her issues. She indicated people were breaking into her house, stealing her mail, and threatening her. Finally, respondent told the investigators that her doctor said she was in a "meth induced" psychosis. Although she denied using methamphetamine, she refused to sign a release of her medical records.

¶ 7 Following the close of arguments, the court noted that a "key" allegation was that respondent had unresolved mental health issues. It stated that it had observed respondent's behavior in the courtroom and listened to her testimony, concluding that the testimony showed that (1) respondent had unresolved mental health issues, (2) respondent was not answering phone calls or text messages for weeks at a time, (3) respondent's home was unsuitable because it was left unsecured and the power had been shut off, (4) A.R. was not going to school when she was in respondent's care, (5) DCFS tried to help respondent, and (6) respondent failed to take advantage of the help. The court then found that the State had met its burden for the adjudication of neglect. It entered a written adjudicatory order, finding the evidence established respondent presented a risk to A.R. because she had three prior indicated reports, had unresolved mental health issues, and had not complied with DCFS's services.

¶ 8 On July 21, 2021, DCFS filed a dispositional report, repeating and summarizing the testimony presented at the June 23, 2021, adjudicatory hearing. On August 4, 2021, the court held a dispositional hearing, taking judicial notice of the dispositional report and taking the testimony of Sherri George-McHugh and respondent. George-McHugh stated that she was a DCFS child welfare specialist assigned to A.R.’s case. She presented screenshots of threats respondent made to a caseworker. In the course of a single weekend, respondent had sent George-McHugh around 700 text messages, including threats against her family. Respondent also became physically intimidating during a supervised visit. Finally, George-McHugh testified that respondent had called her the day before the hearing to say that she had spoken with a therapist but, citing "HIPAA," she refused to sign any releases. George-McHugh recommended that A.R. be adjudicated a ward of the court, with DCFS having the right to place her. She opined that Ryan R. was fit and that A.R. could not be safe in respondent's care. George-McHugh explained that, before DCFS could close the case, a family case would need to be opened and a family order entered awarding Ryan R. custody of A.R.

¶ 9 Respondent testified she had an appointment with her therapist on the day following the hearing; she asserted that it was her third appointment. On cross-examination by the State, she identified her therapist as "Ollie" at First Choice Healthcare in Kewanee, but she could not provide a last name and did not sign a medical release. Respondent explained that she did not "just go off," but that her daughter had been "stolen" from her. She stated: "You charged me with something I did not do, took my mail, left me in a house with no power." Respondent further stated that she did not believe there was anything wrong with her and that she would not consider therapy with a different provider. Finally, respondent explained that she had "no clarity" on why "this was happening to [her]" and stated that she did not believe her therapist could assist her in achieving "clarity."

¶ 10 After hearing arguments, the court stated that it had observed respondent's behavior during her testimony and found her conduct was as the DCFS investigators reported. It found the evidence before it made it "very clear" that respondent was both unfit and unable to provide for A.R.’s care and welfare, that to place A.R. with or return her to respondent presented an overwhelming risk to both her physical and mental health, that Ryan R. had a stable and adequate home with an adequate income, and that A.R. was safe at Ryan R.’s home. The court ordered that A.R. be made a ward of the court and that guardianship of A.R. remain with Ryan R.

¶ 11 Respondent appeals the circuit court's dispositional order.¹

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 13 On appeal, respondent challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the dispositional finding of unfitness. Alternatively, respondent argues that the circuit court's dispositional order violated her constitutional rights. For the reasons that follow, we disagree with both contentions and affirm the circuit court's order.

¶ 14 A. The Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶ 15 In her opening brief, respondent first argued that the testimony at the dispositional hearing was insufficient to support the court's finding that she was unfit or unwilling to care for A.R. She asserted that the court's finding relied on allegations and testimony that she had "unresolved mental health issues." Citing section 1(D)(p) of the Adoption Act ( 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(p) (West 2020)), respondent contended that the court's finding was based on mental impairment requiring...