People v. Darnell (In re CN)

2017 IL App (4th) 170381-U

In re: Cn. D., a Minor

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jason Darnell, Respondent-Appellant).

In re: O.D., a Minor

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jason Darnell, Respondent-Appellant).

In re: Cr. D., a Minor

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jason Darnell, Respondent-Appellant).

NO. 4-17-0381

NO. 4-17-0382

NO. 4-17-0383 cons.

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

October 4, 2017

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from Circuit Court of Sangamon County

No. 14JA81

No. 14JA84

No. 13JA97

Honorable Karen Tharp, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Holder White and Appleton concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court's unfitness determination and termination of respondent's parental rights was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 In May 2017, the trial court terminated respondent Jason Darnell's parental rights as to Cn. D. (born July 5, 2009), O.D. (born December 12, 2007), and Cr. D. (born June 26, 2013). Respondent appeals, contending the trial court's unfitness and best interest findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A. Events Preceding the Unfitness and Best Interest Hearings

¶ 5 Respondent is the biological father of Cn. D., O.D., and Cr. D., and he has a lengthy history of Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) involvement, beginning in July 2007 in Macoupin County. In May 2010, respondent's paramour and the mother to all three minors, Sandra Hrnyak, threatened to inflict self-harm and overmedicate one of her children (who is not involved in this appeal), leading DCFS to place O.D. and Cn. D. in protective custody.

¶ 6 In August 2010, the Macoupin County trial court adjudicated O.D. and Cn. D. neglected due to an injurious environment caused by (1) domestic violence between Hrnyak and respondent and (2) lack of care. Following a dispositional hearing in October 2010, the trial court ordered O.D. and Cn. D. wards of the court, placing custody and guardianship of the minors with DCFS. Both minors were placed in foster care.

¶ 7 In July 2012, O.D. and Cn. D. returned to the custody of Hrnyak and respondent. In December 2012, Hrnyak obtained an order of protection against respondent, alleging he pushed her.

¶ 8 In January 2013, DCFS removed O.D. and Cn. D. from the custody of Hrnyak and respondent. The minors were placed in a foster home after DCFS learned Hrnyak haddropped the order of protection and allowed respondent to move back in with her, as well as O.D. and Cn. D. Hrnyak had not notified DCFS prior to dropping the order of protection.

¶ 9 On June 26, 2013, Cr. D. was born and placed into protective custody two days later. DCFS placed Cr. D. in the same foster home as O.D. and Cn. D. In July 2013, the State filed a petition for adjudication of neglect of Cr. D. in Macoupin County in case No. 13-JA-97.

¶ 10 In July 2013, DCFS removed the minors from the foster home, after receiving a report of physical and sexual abuse against O.D. DCFS placed Cr. D. in a nonrelative substitute caregiver home and Cn. D. and O.D. were placed in a nearby foster home. DCFS found the sexual abuse allegations "unfounded," concluding they were the result of "age appropriate exploratory play" involving another child near O.D.'s age.

¶ 11 In September 2013, the trial court adjudicated Cr. D. neglected. In October 2013, the trial court entered a dispositional order making Cr. D. a ward of the court and placing guardianship and custody with DCFS.

¶ 12 In February 2014, the trial court ordered Hrnyak and respondent to take custody of Cn. D. after finding both parents met their permanency goal of returning Cn. D. home within 12 months. In March 2014, Cr. D. was also returned home. O.D. continued to remain in foster care after DCFS found she was too emotionally unstable to return home at the time.

¶ 13 In April 2014, the trial court entered a permanency order returning custody of O.D. to Hrnyak and respondent in June 2014. In April 2014, the court cases of O.D. and Cn. D. were transferred to Sangamon County after Hrnyak and respondent moved to Springfield.

¶ 14 In May 2014, DCFS received a hotline call alleging respondent's use of excessive corporal punishment on Cn. D., leading DCFS to place Cn. D. in foster care. The State filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect of Cn. D. in Sangamon County case No. 14-JA-81, allegingCn. D. was a neglected minor due to (1) his parents' anger-management issues; (2) an environment injurious to the child's welfare, as evident from bruises on Cn. D.'s upper left arm; (3) excessive corporal punishment inflicted by respondent; and (4) physical abuse by respondent. The State additionally filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect of O.D. in Sangamon County case No. 14-JA-84, and it filed a motion to modify the April 2014 permanency order, requesting the trial court grant DCFS the right to place O.D. instead of returning O.D. back to respondent's custody in June 2014. DCFS removed Cr. D. from respondent's custody and returned him to foster care.

¶ 15 In May 2014, the trial court found probable cause to believe Cn. D. was neglected and abused, but did not find a matter of immediate and urgent necessity to remove him from the home. The trial court granted the State's motion to modify the April 2014 permanency order and O.D. was not returned to respondent's custody in June 2014.

¶ 16 In January 2015, O.D. returned home. In April 2015, Hrnyak and respondent informed DCFS they were being immediately evicted due to extensive damage to their trailer in Springfield, Illinois. In May 2015, Hrnyak and respondent moved with Cn. D. and O.D. back to Macoupin County "against agency advice" and proceeded to miss an annual case review. DCFS suspended visitation with Cr. D., who had remained in foster care, from twice per week unsupervised to once per week supervised "based upon the family's sudden relocation from Springfield[,] which did not allow for plans to be made in order to approve" housing and transportation arrangements. DCFS further stated, "Visitation will increase back to unsupervised when the family demonstrates stability in their current home and engagement in required services."

¶ 17 In a May 2015, the trial court entered an adjudication order, finding Cn. D. abused, based upon allegations from the State's petition filed a year prior in case No. 14-JA-81. In September 2015, the trial court entered a dispositional order making Cn. D. a ward of the court but allowed Cn. D. to remain in respondent's custody.

¶ 18 In April 2016, J.W. Pierceall, a court-appointed guardian ad litem for O.D. recommended to the trial court O.D. be removed from respondent's custody. Pierceall alleged O.D. engaged in misbehavior at school, ranging from lying and stealing to defecation and urination problems, all of which "are evidence of the trauma of her abuse during a previous foster placement." Pierceall found O.D.'s "psychological and emotional therapeutic needs are not being met," and "the parents have hindered the involvement of [DCFS]." Dr. Jane Velez, a psychologist, meanwhile reported "a severe and high concern for the safety and well-being for [Cn. D.] and [O.D.]" and recommended the removal of Cn. D. and O.D. from respondent's custody to stop emotional and physical abuse.

¶ 19 In April 2016, the trial court changed the permanency goals for Cn. D. and O.D. to substitute care pending court determination on termination of parental rights. Both Cn. D. and O.D. thereafter remained in foster care. Also in April 2016, DCFS suspended visitation with Cn. D., O.D. and Cr. D. due to an investigation of respondent for sexual molestation and physical abuse.

¶ 20 In May 2016, the State filed motions for termination of parental rights as to all three minors, alleging respondent has failed to (1) maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minors; (2) make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which were the basis for the removal of minors; (3) make reasonable progress towards the return of the minors within nine months after an adjudication of neglect; and (4) make reasonableprogress towards the return of the minors during any nine-month period following an adjudication of neglect.

¶ 21 In August 2016, DCFS indicated respondent on four allegations involving Cn. D. and O.D., including substantial risk of sexual abuse, sexual molestation and two allegations of incidents of violence and intimidation. DCFS continued to suspend respondent's visitation with Cn. D., O.D., and Cr. D. following its investigation.

¶ 22 In January 2017, the State filed a supplemental motion for termination of parental rights in each minor's case, alleging both Hrnyak and respondent "failed to make reasonable progress towards the return of their children within [nine] months after an adjudication of [n]eglect, *** specifically November 24, 2015[,] to August 24, 2016[,] and August 24, 2016[,] to present." In March 2017, Hrnyak surrendered her parental rights to all three minors.

¶ 23 B. Unfitness Hearing

¶ 24 In April 2017, the trial court held an unfitness hearing on the motions and supplemental motions for termination of parental rights. Testimony from the unfitness hearing is summarized as follows.

¶ 25 1. Kimberly Allen

¶ 26 The State's first witness was Kimberly Allen, a caseworker at the Illinois Department of Human Services who assists participants in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. TANF provides money to unemployed individuals in exchange for volunteering 20 hours per week at a worksite and submitting five weekly job applications. Allen began overseeing respondent's participation in TANF in September 2015.

¶ 27 TANF first placed respondent ...