People v. Charlie S. (In re P.S.)

2021 IL App (5th) 210027

186 N.E.3d 503

452 Ill.Dec. 779

IN RE P.S. and A.S., Minors

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

v.Charlie S., Respondent-Appellant).

NOS. 5-21-0027

5-21-0028 cons.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

Filed July 26, 2021

Anthony G.M. Swarringin, of Edwardsville, for appellant.

Thomas A. Haine, State's Attorney, of Edwardsville (Patrick Delfino and Jennifer L. Camden, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

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

¶ 1 Respondent, Charlie S. (Father), appeals from the judgment of the circuit court of Madison County terminating his parental rights to his two minor children, P.S. and A.S. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 2 P.S. and A.S. are the biological children of Father and Amanda H. (Mother), who is not a party to this appeal. P.S. was born on October 31, 2014. On February 1, 2019, Mother gave birth to A.S., whose meconium tested positive for methamphetamines, amphetamines, and marijuana. Mother admitted to using methamphetamine and marijuana while pregnant and tested positive for both substances. The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) conducted an investigation, during which Mother agreed to DCFS initiating intact family services.

¶ 3 On April 18, 2019, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship of the minors under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) ( 705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2018)). In the petitions, the State alleged that the minors were neglected because their environment was injurious to their welfare ( 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2018)) and A.S. had methamphetamines, amphetamines, and marijuana in his system at birth ( 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(c) (West 2018)). The petitions alleged that (1) Mother had a substance abuse addiction that impaired her ability to adequately care for the minors; (2) Father had a criminal history including, but not limited to, criminal convictions for aggravated battery to a pregnant person and domestic battery; (3) Mother had pending charges for battery and domestic battery and an active warrant for her arrest; and (4) A.S. was born with methamphetamines, amphetamines, and marijuana in his system, and Mother admitted to using said substances during her pregnancy.

¶ 4 On July 25, 2019, the children were taken into protective custody, and shelter care hearings were conducted on July 25, 2019, and July 30, 2019. On the day of the first shelter care hearing, Father tested positive for methamphetamine. Following the hearings, the trial court found there was probable cause to believe the children were neglected as defined by the Act. The children were removed from their parents’ custody, and temporary custody was given to DCFS.

¶ 5 On October 1, 2019, the court adjudicated the minors neglected and made them wards of the court. The court found that Mother admitted to using methamphetamine and marijuana while pregnant and that A.S. was born with these substances in his system. The court also found that Mother's substance abuse impaired her ability to adequately care for the minors, that Father had two criminal convictions for battery, and that Mother had pending criminal charges for battery and an active warrant for her arrest.

¶ 6 On August 4, 2020, the State filed petitions to terminate Father's parental rights to the children. The petitions alleged that Father was unfit based on three statutory grounds: (1) he failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the children ( 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020)); (2) he failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the children during any nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect, specifically October 1, 2019, through the date of the filing of the petitions ( 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2020)); and (3) he failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the children during any nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect, specifically October 1, 2019, through the date of the of the filing of the petitions ( 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020)).

¶ 7 On November 24, 2020, the court called the cause for a fitness hearing. The proceedings were conducted in open court, via Zoom, a video conferencing platform. At the start of the hearing, Father's counsel made an oral motion to continue the case until an in-person hearing could be conducted at some later date. The State requested that the case proceed over Zoom. Mother's counsel stated that Mother would prefer an in-person hearing but had not expressed any concerns about proceeding via Zoom. The court denied Father's motion to continue. Father then made a motion to have an emergency, in-person hearing that day, which the court denied.

¶ 8 At the fitness hearing, Gretchen Truax testified that she was assigned as the family's caseworker in August 2019. Truax testified that after Mother gave birth to A.S., both Mother and A.S. tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines. Thereafter, DCFS was contacted and conducted an investigation. During the investigation, Mother admitted to using controlled substances during her pregnancy, but Father denied any substance abuse. DCFS also learned that the family had a history of domestic violence. Mother agreed to DCFS initiating intact family services. An intact family service plan was created in April 2019, but conditions required the children to be taken into DCFS care in July 2019.

¶ 9 In August 2019, after the children were taken into care, Truax created a service plan, which she reviewed every six months. Father's initial service plan included the following tasks: (1) complete a substance abuse assessment and follow any recommendations, (2) complete a mental health assessment and follow any recommendations, (3) complete a domestic violence assessment and follow any recommendations, and (4) cooperate with DCFS. Truax testified that Father's most recent service plan was created in June 2020 and included the same tasks. Truax testified that, as of her last review, Father had not made any progress on his service plan.

¶ 10 Truax referred Father to Chestnut Health System (Chestnut) early in the case, and Father had repeatedly advised Truax that he had made an appointment to complete his assessment. Truax stated that when she would follow up with Father, he would always have some excuse for having missed the appointment. Father completed his first assessment in January 2020, and Chestnut recommended that Father engage in outpatient treatment with group and individual sessions. Father did not attend these sessions and was unsuccessfully discharged from the program in February 2020. Truax re-referred Father to Chestnut, and he completed a new assessment in April 2020. Chestnut again recommended that Father complete outpatient services. Father did not attend the sessions, and he was unsuccessfully discharged a second time. Truax referred Father to Chestnut a third time, but Father did not complete that assessment. Truax testified that Father checked himself into Chestnut's seven-day crisis unit on two occasions. Both times, Father checked himself out, against the advice of the staff, before completing the seven-day treatment.

¶ 11 Truax testified that Father began looking into inpatient substance abuse treatment in July 2020, and that he was put on a waiting list at Gateway Rehabilitation Center (Gateway). Truax did not know if the wait time for Gateway's inpatient program was impacted by the ongoing coronavirus (or COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Father was admitted to Gateway in October 2020 and was successfully released from the program in the beginning of November. Gateway recommended that Father complete outpatient treatment and referred him to Chestnut. Father completed this assessment at Chestnut on November 17, 2020, which again recommended that he complete group and individual sessions. Truax testified that Father indicated that he was going to start treatment at Chestnut the week of the termination hearing.

¶ 12 Truax testified that Father tested positive for methamphetamines and amphetamines on September 30, 2019; January 22, 2020; February 19, 2020; February 26, 2020; and March 11, 2020. Father failed to appear for drug testing on December 23, 2019; January 8, 2020; June 17, 2020; July 24, 2020; September 18, 2020; and October 7, 2020. Father tested negative for substances on May 28, 2020. Truax testified there were two gaps in drug testing for Father, one between September 30, 2019, and December 23, 2019, and another between March 11, 2020, and May 28, 2020. With regard to the first gap, Truax testified she did not request drug tests from Father during this period because Father indicated that he was going to engage in substance abuse services with Chestnut and Chestnut would have tested Father. When Truax realized that Father was not engaged in services, she started referring Father to drug tests again. Truax explained that the second gap was due to the regular testing facility temporarily closing due to the coronavirus pandemic.

¶ 13 Father's service plan also recommended that he complete a mental health assessment and follow any recommendations from the assessment. Truax testified that she referred Father to Chestnut for a mental health assessment. Father advised Truax that he wanted to focus on his substance abuse first, so he did not complete the mental health assessment until April 2020. Chestnut recommended that Father complete outpatient services, but Father did not complete the services and he was unsuccessfully discharged from the program. Truax stated that Father completed a mental health assessment while he was at Gateway in October or November 2020. Gateway recommended Father seek medication and services to alleviate his anxiety, and referred him to Chestnut. Truax...