People v. Harielle E. (In re M.M.)

1

2024 IL App (1st) 231409-U

In re M.M., a Minor, Appellee

The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Harielle E., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 1-23-1409

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division

March 21, 2024

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 Cook County. No. 18 JA 540 Honorable Kimberly D. Lewis, Judge, presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Martin and Ocasio concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

ROCHFORD, PRESIDING JUSTICE.

¶ 1 Held: We affirm the finding of the trial court that the mother was unfit to parent her child over her arguments that the court considered inadmissible evidence and her counsel was ineffective at the fitness hearing for failing to object to the inadmissible evidence and seek to reopen proofs. We also affirm the finding that it was in the child's best interest that the mother's parental rights be terminated.

¶ 2 Respondent-appellant, Harielle E., (the mother) appeals from the trial court's July 10, 2023 order finding her unfit as a parent under sections 1(D)(b) and (m) of the Adoption Act (grounds b and m) (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b), (m) (West 2022)) and pursuant to section 2-29 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/2-29 (West 2022)) and terminating her parental rights as to her minor daughter, M.M. We affirm.

¶ 3 M.M. was born on June 6, 2018 to the mother and Antoine M (the father)^[1] and taken into custody by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) two days later. The parents also have an older daughter, Me.M., (born on June 7, 2017) and two younger sons, Mar.M. (born on August 21, 2019) and Mat.M. (born in late 2020)^[2] (together siblings or children). M.M. and Mar.M. reside in the same non-relative foster home with Vinnie M. (the foster parent). Me.M. and Mat. M. live in a relative foster home with the maternal grandfather, Harrelle E. (the grandfather). Parental rights regarding the siblings are not at issue on appeal.

¶ 4 On June 11, 2018, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship of M.M., based on the prior abuse of Me.M., against the mother and the father, contending that M.M. was neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) [injurious environment] and abused pursuant to section 2-3(2)(ii) [substantial risk of physical injury] of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b), 2(ii) (West 2018)), and a motion for temporary custody. As to the petition and the motion, the State alleged:

"Putative father has one prior indicated report for medical neglect and bone fractures by abuse. Parents have one other minor[, Me.M.,] who is in DCFS temporary custody with findings of abuse, neglect and physical abuse having been entered. Offered and recommended reunification services are outstanding for both parents at this time. Parents reside together and paternity has not been established."

The State supported these factual allegations with the affidavit of a DCFS investigator who also averred that the mother was still in a relationship and lived with the father, who was indicated in the prior investigation as to Me.M. The investigator further stated that the mother had not completed required services as to Me.M.'s case and her "[i]nvolvement with child in care[, Me.M.] inconsistent."

¶ 5 That day, the trial court entered orders granting temporary custody of M.M. to DCFS and appointing her a guardian ad litem (GAL). DCFS placed M.M. in the foster parent's home. The court entered an order allowing the mother and the father supervised day visits. Ada S. McKinley Community Services (McKinley) was assigned to monitor the family on behalf of DCFS.

¶ 6 On July 17, 2018, the trial court entered an order which stated that the father agreed to comply with an emergency order of protection (EOP) issued on July 10, 2018 in case number 18 OP 75267 and prohibited him from having contact with the mother, Me.M., and M.M. In her petition for the EOP, the mother alleged that on July 8, 2018: "[The father] was very irritable and upset at me. We were arguing the entire day and he made numerous threats to hit me and beat me up. I didn't feel safe being with him and I was afraid he would seriously hurt me this day." The mother asked the court "to make [the father] get help with his mental health issues and help him become a better person."

¶ 7 On the court date of September 27, 2018, the State presented exhibits which are part of the record including: a September 24, 2017 prior report history as to Me.M. stating "indicated for allegation #9 bone fractures and #79 medical neglect;" the July 10, 2018 EOP; and a three-page stipulation of facts dated May 24, 2018, which was filed in the case involving Me.M.

¶ 8 The stipulation of facts provided as follows. The father was custodial of Me.M. at the relevant times. The mother spent about "50% of the time at the residence where the father resides with [Me.M.]." On September 24, 2017, after taking Me.M. to the park with the father, the mother noticed that Me.M.'s "leg was discolored, her foot was swollen and she was not extending her left leg." They brought her to the hospital. The father said that Me.M. fell out of her carrier at the park and landed on the concrete on her left hip. The father had no explanation for Me.M.'s healing broken ribs. The mother did not know how Me.M. was injured.

¶ 9 Dr. Kirsten Simonton, an expert in the field of pediatrics and child abuse pediatrics, described Me.M.'s injuries as: "subacute healing fractures of the left first, second, and third metatarsals, an acute oblique left femoral fracture, a healing right posterior seventh and eighth rib fractures, a possible subconjunctival hemorrhage in the medial aspect of left eye, a bruise under the minor's right eye, multiple hyper pigmented lesions, and a periosteal reaction along the right femur." The doctor's opinion was that the "presence of acute and healing fractures in [Me.M.] are consistent with non-accidental trauma."

¶ 10 That same day, based in part on the stipulation of facts, the trial court entered an adjudication order finding that M.M. had been neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) [injurious environment] and abused pursuant to section 2-3(2)(ii) [substantial risk of physical injury] of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b), 2(ii) (West 2018)). The trial court found that the abuse was inflicted by a parent.

¶ 11 The trial court also entered a disposition order adjudicating M.M. a ward of the court and finding that the mother and the father were unable for some reason other than financial circumstances alone to care for, protect, train, or discipline M.M. The trial court found that it was in the best interest of M.M. to remove her from the custody of the mother and the father. Temporary custody was terminated and M.M. was placed in the guardianship of DCFS. The court entered a permanency order setting a goal of return home within 12 months.

¶ 12 On October 30, 2018, an October 29, 2018 quarterly report, prepared by the mother's then therapist, was entered into the common law record. The therapist noted that the mother lacked the ability to properly gauge potentially harmful environments. The therapist going forward hoped to work with the mother on how she could process information, take responsibility for her actions, and understand the father's actions lead to this case. According to the report, the mother remained in a relationship with the father and showed signs of wanting to continue the relationship. The mother "must be able to adequately advocate for the safety of her children and self-protect." The therapist recommended continued participation in therapy and frequent supervised visitations.

¶ 13 A February 15, 2019 permanency order set a goal of return home within nine months. The mother's quarterly therapist report revealed that she had attended 30 of 52 possible sessions, did not acknowledge the father's wrongdoing as to Me.M., refuses to discuss the domestic violence in her relationship with the father, had begun a graphic design business with the father and understands that her therapy progression must improve to achieve reunification.

¶ 14 On June 5, 2019, the trial court ordered that the mother's unsupervised visits with M.M. could not commence until the mother made progress in treatment and had negative urine screens. On August 7, 2019, the trial court entered an additional order on visits, stating that visits would remain supervised, as the mother "is inconsistent with drug treatment but is consistent with domestic violence and therapy." The court also entered a permanency order with a goal of return home within 12 months.

¶ 15 On October 8, 2020, the trial court set a goal of substitute care pending court determination on termination of parental rights. In the order the court found that the required services were appropriate and were still ongoing.

¶ 16 On June 9, 2021, the State filed a supplemental petition for the appointment of a guardian with the right to consent to adoption. The State alleged that the parents were unfit under 750 ILCS 50/1(D) (b) and (m) (West 2020) and 705 ILCS 405/2-29 (West 2020) and that it was in the best interest of M.M. that their parental rights be terminated. The State further alleged that it was in the best interest of M.M. that a guardian be appointed with the right to consent to adoption as M.M. had resided with the foster parent since June 11, 2018 and the foster parent wanted to adopt her.

¶ 17 On December 14, 2022, the trial court entered a case management conference order listing more than 12 witnesses and identifying the following as exhibits: any and...