People v. A.D.-U. (In re A.U.)

1

2024 IL App (1st) 231727

In re A.U., a Minor, Appellee

The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. A.D.-U., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 1-23-1727

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, First Division

June 3, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Child Protection Division No. 22JA00927 The Honorable Peter J Vilkelis, Judge Presiding.

Attorneys for Appellant: Sharone R. Mitchell Jr., Public Defender, of Chicago (Kathryn Pelech, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.

Attorneys for Appellee: Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham and Gina DiVito Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Charles P. Golbert, Public Guardian, of Chicago (Mary Brigid Hayes, Assistant Public Guardian), for other appellee.

JUSTICE PUCINSKI delivered the judgment of the court with opinion. Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Coghlan concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

PUCINSKI, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Respondent-appellant, A.D.-U., appeals from the circuit court's adjudication order finding her child, minor-appellee, A.U., neglected due to an injurious environment under section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act). 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2022). Respondent further appeals from the subsequent August 24, 2023 disposition order that adjudged A.U. a ward of the court and found respondent unfit and unable to care for the minor. For the following reasons, we affirm the circuit court's orders.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Respondent gave birth to A.U., a boy, on November 22, 2022. The record reflects that A.U. lived with respondent and his father, S.U., since shortly after birth. S.U. is not a party to this appeal but was represented in the proceedings below.

¶ 4 The record also reflects that respondent had two older minor children, who did not live in the same home with A.U and respondent.^[1] Those children were subject to separate proceedings under the Act.

¶ 5 On December 19, 2022, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship alleging that A.U. was neglected due to an injurious environment (id.) and alleging that he was abused due to a substantial risk of injury (id. § 2-3(2)(ii)). In its petition, the State alleged as follows:

"Natural mother has one prior indicated report for inadequate supervision and substantial risk of physical injury/environment injurious to welfare. Natural mother has two other minors in DCFS guardianship with findings of abuse and neglect having been entered. Natural mother has been non-compliant with services geared towards reunification with those minors and has not been determined safe for unsupervised visitation with those minors. Natural mother was uncooperative with DCFS efforts to assess the safety of [A.U.] after birth. Legal father resides with mother and has not made himself available to be assessed as a caregiver for [A.U.].

Paternity has not been established."^[2]

Also on December 19, 2022, the State separately moved for temporary custody of A.U.

¶ 6 The following day, the circuit court held an evidentiary temporary custody hearing and found probable cause that A.U. had been abused and neglected. However, the court found no immediate and urgent necessity to support removal from the home. Thus, the December 20, 2022 temporary custody hearing order stated that A.U. would remain in the custody of respondent and S.U., subject to an order of protection. The corresponding December 2022 order of protection specified numerous conditions. Among these, respondent and S.U. were required to "cooperate with all reasonable requests of DCFS," "attend and complete parenting skills classes, if required by DCFS," refrain from illegal drug use, and "participate in a (substance abuse/psychological/psychiatric) assessment and cooperate with all reasonable recommendations."^[3]

¶ 7 The Adjudication Hearing and Stipulation

¶ 8 The adjudication hearing took place on April 26, 2023, with the parties agreeing to proceed by way of a written stipulation that was entered into evidence.^[4]

¶ 9 The stipulation provided that, if called to testify Delilah Butler would state she is a Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) caseworker assigned to respondent's two older minor children. Butler would state that, at the time of A.U.'s birth, respondent was in need of reunification services in order to safely reunite with her two older minors, including individual therapy, parenting services, a psychiatric evaluation, a substance abuse assessment, domestic violence services, and family therapy. Respondent had been engaged in individual therapy but stopped attending in August 2022. As of A.U.'s birth in November 2022, respondent had not participated in any other reunification services.

¶ 10 Butler would further testify that, as of the time of A.U.'s birth, she did not recommend respondent have unsupervised contact with her two older children. Butler would also testify that respondent had initially refused to tell Butler where A.U. was located. Butler did not make contact with respondent and A.U. until December 16, 2022, when Butler saw them in respondent's home.

¶ 11 Apart from the stipulated testimony, the parties also stipulated to the admission of adjudication and disposition orders entered in case Nos. 21-JA-279 and 21-JA-280, which concerned respondent's two older children. Specifically, adjudication orders entered in March 2022 found those two children were neglected due to an injurious environment and due to being left without supervision for an unreasonable period of time (id. § 2-3(1)(b), (d)) and that they were abused due to a substantial risk of physical injury (id. § 2-3(2)(ii)). Those adjudication orders included factual findings that the two children were left home alone overnight on a regular basis, that one of them expressed suicidal ideations with thoughts of using a knife at school, and that respondent had untreated mental health issues. The May 2022 disposition orders adjudged the children wards of the court, after the court found that respondent and the children's fathers were unable for some reason other than financial circumstances alone to care for, protect, train, or discipline them.

¶ 12 Counsel's Argument and Finding of Neglect for A.U. ¶ 13 Following the stipulation and admission of the orders from the older children's cases, the State argued it had met its burden to show that A.U. was (1) neglected due to an injurious environment and (2) abused due to a substantial risk of injury. The public guardian joined in the State's argument.

¶ 14 Respondent's counsel did not dispute that a finding of neglect was warranted but asked the court not to make a finding of abuse. Specifically, her counsel argued:

"I would ask your Honor reserve his findings to N.E.I. [(neglect due to injurious environment)] only as this is an add on sibling for mother's prior child protection cases. The minor is home and there is nothing to indicate in the stipulation that was read into the record that the minor was ever abused while in the presence of [respondent.]"

Counsel for A.U.'s father joined in respondent's argument, commenting that "the allegations support N.E.I." but that the facts of the case "don't support the abuse substantial risk allegation."

¶ 15 The circuit court then found that the evidence was "more than sufficient" to support neglect due to injurious environment, naming respondent as the perpetrator of the neglect. Noting that a different judge had entered the December 2022 order allowing A.U. to remain home subject to an order of protection, the circuit court requested that the terms of that order of protection be read into the record. After the conditions of the order or protection were recited, the court indicated that it would assess whether the conditions were being followed at the eventual dispositional hearing. The court also indicated that if A.U.'s parents did not comply with those conditions, it could vacate the order of protection and remove A.U. from their custody.

¶ 16 The Dispositional Hearing ¶ 17 The record reflects that the dispositional hearing occurred on August 24, 2023, in conjunction with the court receiving a progress report regarding respondent's two older children.

¶ 18 The State called DCFS caseworker Butler as a witness. Butler testified that she had been A.U.'s caseworker since his birth approximately nine months earlier and that he remained at home with his parents. Butler stated that A.U. was in need of a "0 to 3 developmental screening" to "see if he is developmentally on track."

¶ 19 Butler testified that she had last seen A.U. within the last 30 days, when respondent brought A.U. to one of respondent's visits with one of the older children. That visit was not at respondent's home. Butler testified that she was last in respondent's home near the end of June 2023. Butler stated that the home was a safe and appropriate environment for A.U., that there were no signs of abuse or neglect, and that there had been no unusual incidents while A.U. lived with his parents.

¶ 20 Upon further questioning by the State, Butler testified that it had been "difficult to talk to Mom [respondent] regarding services" for A.U. and that she usually spoke with A.U.'s pediatrician. When the court asked Butler to explain further, Butler testified that she "usually call[ed] the pediatrician to get updates" on A. U.She said that it was easier to speak to the pediatrician because when Butler went to the home, respondent typically "does not answer my questions" and usually asked Butler to leave after about 5 or 10 minutes. Butler stated she had made monthly visits to the home until her last visit in June 2023 when it took respondent "twenty...