People v. J.R. (In Je.R.)

1

2024 IL App (1st) 232140-U

In re Je.R., Ja.R., and N.R., Minors

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

No. 1-23-2140

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division

September 5, 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. Nos. 21JA147, 21JA148 21JA149 Honorable Patrick Murphy, Judge, presiding.

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

ORDER

HOFFMAN, JUSTICE.

¶ 1 Held: In a termination of parental rights proceeding, the father's trial counsel's failure to object to hearsay testimony did not prejudice the father when the information contained in the hearsay testimony was also properly admitted through other testimony.

¶ 2 J.R. ("the Father") appeals a circuit court judgment terminating his parental rights to minors Je.R Ja.R., and N.R (collectively "the Children"). The Father contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to hearsay testimony at the hearing on his unfitness to parent the Children and that the evidence did not support the circuit court's conclusion that the termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of the Children. We see no merit to his arguments and affirm.

¶ 3 In February 2021, the State filed petitions for the adjudication of wardship as to each of the Children. At the time, Je.R. was 8 years old, Ja.R. was 7 years old, and N.R. was 5 years old. Each petition contained the same allegations that the Children had witnessed domestic violence at home and had been physically beaten while living with their natural mother, Jac.R., and her paramour. Jac.R. is not a party to this appeal. The petitions named J.R. as each child's father and alleged that his whereabouts were unknown. The State unsuccessfully attempted service on the Father at an address in Chicago. It then published notice by newspaper. The Father did not appear at a temporary custody hearing, and on May 26, 2021, the Father was defaulted for failure to appear. That same day, the Children were adjudicated abused or neglected due to physical abuse and the substantial risk of physical injury. On November 9, 2021, the Children were adjudicated wards of the court and were placed in the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services ("the Department" or "DCFS"), with the circuit court finding that the Father was unable and unwilling to care for the Children. The Department placed the Children in the custody of J.R. Sr. and E.R., the Father's father and stepmother, respectively.

¶ 4 On July 11, 2022, the State filed supplemental petitions seeking to terminate the Father's parental rights as to each of the Children. The State alleged that the Father was unfit to parent the Children on 5 different grounds, including that he had abandoned the Children (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(a) (West 2022)), that he failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the Children's welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b)), that he deserted the Children for more than 3 months preceding the commencement of the termination proceedings (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(c)), that he failed to make reasonable progress towards the return of the Children to him during the 9-month period of May 26, 2021, through February 26, 2022 (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)), and that he evidenced an intent to forego his parental rights (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(n)). The State served the Father by certified mail. The Father then appeared in court and admitted paternity of each of the Children.

¶ 5 The circuit court held a hearing on the State's petition over the course of three days. At the outset of the hearing, the parties stipulated to the admission into evidence of 8 documents. Among these were service plans prepared by the Department stating that the Father "has not had any involvement with the case" and "has not had contact with his children in 5 years" and that the Children reported that they did not wish to see the Father. The court then heard the following relevant testimony.

¶ 6 Tasheena Dorris testified that she is a case manager for Child Link. During her time on the case in 2021, she was unable to locate the Father, despite conducting diligent searches every 6 months. Because he never came forward to be assessed, the Father was never referred for any services. Dorris reported that the Children told her that they had not seen their father in many years and did not wish to make contact with him. The Father never reached out to her to ask about the well-being of the Children.

¶ 7 Diane Sanchez testified that she is also a case manager for Child Link and that she took over the case in December 2021. She attempted to locate the Father through a diligent search in May 2022, and the Father eventually made contact with her in June 2022. The Father was assessed for services in August 2022, and, although he was not formally referred for services because the case goal had already been advanced to termination, it was recommended that the Father engage in individual therapy, parenting classes, and parenting coaching. To her knowledge, Sanchez believed that the Father was able to complete those services. No visitation plan was created for the Father because the Children refused to see him. Sanchez testified that during her time on the case the Father did check on the well-being of the Children, but his contact was inconsistent. Sanchez stated that the Father and his father, J.R. Sr., do not speak to each other. According to Sanchez, the Father was willing to complete services, wanted reunification, and wanted to see his children. Sanchez was aware that the Father had sent gifts to the Children while they were in the custody of his father and stepmother.

¶ 8 E.R. testified that she is the Father's stepmother. The Father had lived with her and her husband from the age of 9 until he was a teenager. After he left their household, the Father remained in contact with E.R. until 2012, at which point they were no longer getting along. E.R.'s most recent contact with the Father was a text message in 2019. E.R. lost track of where the Father was living in 2020. E.R. testified that she and the Father have a "rocky" relationship and had often had disagreements "over the children."

¶ 9 E.R. stated that after the Children were placed in her custody, she made attempts to contact the Father by relaying messages through other family members. E.R. knew that the Father had received her messages because the Father's sister told her that "she was calling to check on the kids, because [the Father] told her that we had custody of the kids, and the kids were living in our home." The Father's counsel did not object to that statement. E.R. never had any direct contact with the Father, and to her knowledge the Father had never reached out to ask how the Children were doing. E.R. testified that she still had the same phone number that she had when the Father was living with her, and she had lived at the same address since 2012, when she still had contact with the Father.

¶ 10 On cross-examination, E.R. testified that in January 2021 she told the Father's sister, Y.P., that the Children had been placed in their custody. The following exchange then took place:

"Q. Okay. Did you tell [Y.P.] that you just had the kids or that the kids were placed there because of a DCFS case?

A. She already knew the information.

MR. BASTOUNES [(THE FATHER'S ATTORNEY)]: Well, I'm going to object to that and ask that answer -

THE COURT: How do you know she knew the information?

THE WITNESS: She told me.

THE COURT: She told you?

THE WITNESS: When she called me, she told me that -- she told me that she knew that the kids were at my home, because the father told her.

THE COURT: Okay. It's hearsay. I'm not going to permit it in. So I'm going to sustain the objection on that.

MR. BASTOUNES: Well, but -- now I'm intrigued.

THE COURT: Well, if you want to pursue, that is fine.

MR. BASTOUNES: Thank you.

BY MR. BASTOUNES:

Q. Do you know if the father told her the kids were just at the home or that the home -- that they were placed there pursuant to a DCFS active case? Do you know?

A. She told me that he told her that the kids were -- that we had custody of the kids.

Q. Okay.

A. Because the kids were removed from the mother through DCFS."

The Father's counsel did not object to E.R.'s last two statements.

¶ 11 The State then rested its case, and the Father next testified in his defense. The Father stated that when the case began in January 2021 he was living at an address on West Bernice, where he had lived since the preceding September. The Father had not seen the Children in a long time because their mother would not let him. He knew where J.R. Sr. and E.R. lived, but he was not welcome to visit or call them. According to the Father, he would have his sister, Y.P., reach out to J.R. Sr. several times throughout each year to ask about the Children because the Children's mother would sometimes let them visit with J.R. Sr. and E.R. The Father testified that he did not know that the Children were in the custody of J.R. Sr. and E.R. until he received a letter from Sanchez in July 2022. Sanchez later told him that the Children were living with J.R. Sr. and E.R.

¶ 12 According to the Father, Y.P. did not know that there was an active wardship case until he told her. At that point in the summer of 2022, the Father asked Y.P. to mediate the possibility of him seeing the Children. Y.P. arranged a phone call between the Father, J.R. Sr., and E.R. Despite the conversation, the Father remained unable to see the...