People v. Francisco V. (In re G.D.)

1

2023 IL App (4th) 230109-U

In re G.D., a Minor

The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Francisco V., Respondent-Appellant

No. 4-23-0109

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

June 29, 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 Woodford County No. 21JA7 Honorable Charles M. Feeney III, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Harris and Doherty concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

TURNER JUSTICE.

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the circuit court did not err in terminating respondent's parental rights.

¶ 2 Respondent, Francisco V., appeals the circuit court's order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, G.D (born in September 2018). Respondent argues the court erred in finding him unfit and concluding it was in G.D.'s best interests to terminate his parental rights. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On April 20, 2021, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship and shelter care, alleging G.D. was neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)) because her environment was injurious to her welfare when she resided with her parents, respondent and Claudia D., due to domestic violence issues. We note Claudia D. is not a party to this appeal, but she filed a separate appeal docketed as Fourth District case No. 4-23-0108. Specifically the wardship petition alleged respondent struck Claudia D. in the head and Claudia D. stabbed respondent with a pen at a time when G.D. was in their care. That same day, the circuit court entered an order placing G.D. in the temporary custody of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Following an August 2021 hearing, the court entered an adjudicatory order, finding G.D. was neglected as alleged in the wardship petition. On September 8, 2021, the court entered a dispositional order finding respondent and Claudia D. unfit to care for G.D. The court made her a ward of the court and granted custody and guardianship to DCFS. The court ordered respondent to cooperate with DCFS and comply with specific terms as directed by DCFS.

¶ 5 On October 6, 2022, the State filed a two-count petition to terminate respondent's and Claudia D.'s parental rights. As to respondent, the petition alleged respondent was unfit because he failed to make (1) reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for G.D.'s removal during a nine-month period after the neglect adjudication (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2022)) and (2) reasonable progress toward G.D.'s return during a ninemonth period after the neglect adjudication (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022)). Both counts alleged the same nine-month period of January 1, 2022, through October 1 2022.

¶ 6 On January 6, 2023, the circuit court held a hearing on the State's petition to terminate respondent's parental rights. At the State's request and without objection, the court took judicial notice of the State's petition for adjudication of wardship and shelter care and the court's previous adjudicatory and dispositional orders. Without objection, the court also admitted a DCFS service plan. Additionally, the State presented the testimony of Brooke Bachtold, the caseworker in this matter.

¶ 7 Bachtold testified respondent was ordered to complete mental health, substance abuse, and domestic violence services, along with parenting classes, cooperate with Bachtold's agency, attend visitation with G.D., and provide proof of stable housing and a legal source of income during the review period of January 1, 2022, through October 1, 2022. Bachtold stated respondent participated in the initial substance abuse services and domestic violence services intakes but did not complete either of the services due to lack of transportation. Bachtold stated respondent cooperated with Bachtold's agency, successfully completed mental health services, and appeared to have stable housing. Bachtold testified respondent's visitation with G.D. was "fairly consistent" after he was provided Amtrak train tickets to visit G.D. in Palatine, Illinois. Bachtold testified respondent did not provide proof of legal income. Further, Bachtold said respondent attended parenting classes but did not complete the program because he did not complete the final evaluation. Bachtold also testified her agency offered to assist respondent with transportation. On recross-examination, Bachtold stated respondent reported having transportation through his supervisor at work or friends to drive him to the Amtrak station.

¶ 8 G.D.'s guardian ad litem made a brief argument specifically criticizing respondent's claim of transportation issues. The guardian ad litem noted respondent's ability to procure transportation to Palatine, Illinois, for a visit with G.D. but inability to obtain transportation to Bloomington, Illinois, which was closer to him.

¶ 9 The circuit court found respondent unfit by clear and convincing evidence on both grounds alleged in the petition.

¶ 10 On February 3, 2023, the circuit court held a best interests hearing. The court considered the best interests report prepared by Bachtold, and Bachtold gave testimony consistent with the best interests report. Respondent was not present at the start of the hearing but arrived during Bachtold's testimony.

¶ 11 Bachtold testified G.D. had lived with her foster parent, Maria S., for nearly two years. Maria S. was unmarried with a two-bedroom apartment wherein G.D. had her own room, which was safe and appropriate and had toys. G.D. was appropriately clothed and well-fed and Maria S.'s home was safe and secure for G.D. Bachtold explained Maria S. and G.D. shared a Hispanic ethnic background and the household was bilingual, though they primarily spoke Spanish. G.D. was attached to Maria S., and placement with Maria S. was the least disruptive option for G.D. Bachtold testified G.D. was in a bilingual preschool and she was present for G.D.'s most recent parent-teacher conference, where she learned G.D. was doing well interacting with other children and had developed friendships. Bachtold stated Maria S. was willing to adopt G.D. On cross-examination, Bachtold stated respondent had since completed his final parenting class evaluation.

¶ 12 Respondent testified he wanted custody of G.D. because he is her father and works hard to provide for her.

¶ 13 The circuit court found the State proved by both a preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence it was in the best interests of G.D. to terminate respondent's parental rights.

¶ 14 This appeal followed.

¶ 15 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 16 A. Compliance with Rule 341(h)

¶ 17 We first address the State's argument this court should (1) strike respondent's statement of facts for failing to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) and (2) find his arguments forfeited for failing to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).

¶ 18 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) sets forth the rules governing the contents and requirements for an appellant's brief. Rule 341(h)(6) states an appellant's statement of facts "shall contain the facts necessary to an understanding of the case, stated accurately and fairly without argument or comment, and with appropriate reference to the pages of the record on appeal." Ill. S.Ct. R. 341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Rule 341(h)(7) states an appellant's argument "shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on." Ill. S.Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Rule 341(h) is not a mere suggestion, and it is within this court's discretion to strike an appellant's brief and dismiss the appeal entirely for failing to comply with Rule 341(h). Niewold v. Fry, 306 Ill.App.3d 735, 737, 714 N.E.2d 1082, 1084 (1999). However, a brief with violations of supreme court rules that do not "hinder or preclude our review" need not be stricken in whole or in part. Gaston v. City of Danville, 393 Ill.App.3d 591, 601, 912 N.E.2d 771, 779 (2009).

¶ 19 The State argues respondent's statement of facts should be stricken for violating Rule 341(h)(6) because it does not contain any testimony from the fitness or best interests hearings. Our review of respondent's statement of facts shows a brief reference to testimony. We also note respondent's statement of facts contains argument or comment in violation of Rule 341(h)(6). However, we conclude the respondent's statement of facts is minimally sufficient for our review of the issues presented in this appeal.

¶ 20 The State further argues because respondent's argument section "fails to cite any case law" pertaining to reasonable progress, reasonable efforts, or best interests factors, respondent's arguments on these subjects should be forfeited. We disagree with the State's contention respondent's arguments fail to cite any case law, but we do note respondent's citation to authorities is minimal. Ultimately, our ability to review the issues presented is not precluded, but we caution counsel to carefully adhere to the requirements of the supreme court rules in future appeals.

¶ 21 B. Issues on Appeal

¶ 22 Respondent argues the circuit court erred in finding him unfit and finding it was in G.D.'s best interests to terminate his parental rights. We disagree and affirm the court's judgment.

¶ 23 Under section 2-29(2) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2022)), the involuntary termination of parental rights...