People v. Kathleen G. (In re M.R.)

2020 IL App (1st) 191716

163 N.E.3d 804

444 Ill.Dec. 241

IN RE M.R., a Minor

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.Kathleen G., Respondent-Appellant.)

No. 1-19-1716

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, SIXTH DIVISION.

Filed February 14, 2020

Rehearing denied March 19, 2020

Amy P. Campanelli, Public Defender, of Chicago (Suzanne A. Isaacson, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Gina DiVito, and Sara McGann, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Charles P. Golbert, Public Guardian, of Chicago (Kass A. Plain, of counsel), guardian ad litem.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Respondent, Kathleen G., appeals the order of the circuit court of Cook County terminating her parental rights. On appeal, respondent contends the trial court's finding that it was in the minor M.R.'s best interest to terminate respondent's parental rights was against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 2 I. JURISDICTION

¶ 3 The circuit court entered its final judgment terminating respondent's parental rights on July 22, 2019. Respondent filed her notice of appeal on August 20, 2019. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(6) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017), governing appeals from a judgment terminating parental rights under the Adoption Act ( 750 ILCS 50/5 (West 2016) ).

¶ 4 II. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 Respondent is the mother of M.R., who was born on November 26, 2005. Respondent came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in August 2013, because she appeared to be intoxicated and hit M.R. at Walgreens. She was again indicated for abuse/neglect in October 2014 and referred to family services. Respondent completed substance abuse programs for alcohol in 2014 and 2015. In December 2015, at a meeting with M.R.'s therapist, respondent appeared intoxicated and smelled strongly of alcohol. M.R.'s school had called the police that day due to respondent's behavior. In January 2016, respondent appeared intoxicated at her therapy appointment. She smelled strongly of alcohol, she was stumbling, and her speech was slurred. Respondent also was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was not compliant with her medication.

¶ 6 The State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship and for temporary custody on February 9, 2016. The petition alleged that respondent was not consistent with her medication even though she has a mental health diagnosis, and she appeared intoxicated at M.R.'s therapist's office and also at the office of her own therapist. Although respondent completed intact family services and an alcohol treatment program, she continued to be intoxicated while with M.R. M.R.'s biological father, Morr. R., was unable to care for M.R. The trial court entered an order for removal of M.R. from her parents' custody.

¶ 7 DCFS evaluators noted that M.R. was afraid of respondent when she drank and that she carried contact information for family members in case respondent was unable to care for her. M.R. wanted to live with her mother, but first she wanted her to stop drinking. M.R. had been exposed to respondent's alcohol abuse and mental health issues for most of her life. The trial court found M.R. neglected due to an injurious environment. On September 20, 2016, after finding respondent unable to parent, the court placed M.R. in DCFS guardianship. Respondent does not appeal these findings.

¶ 8 On January 24, 2019, the State filed a supplemental petition for appointment of a guardian with right to consent to adoption. The petition alleged that respondent was unfit and that M.R. had been placed in her preadoptive foster home since February 9, 2018.

¶ 9 At the unfitness hearing, caseworker Maria Molina stated that she was assigned to the case from August 2016 to mid-2018. When she came into the case, respondent was already engaged in individual therapy to address alcohol and mental health issues, although the alcohol issue was subsequently removed at respondent's request because she felt it did not need to be addressed. Molina believed that the goal of addressing alcohol use should have remained. She never rated respondent successful in therapy under any service plan.

¶ 10 Respondent had supervised visits at the agency or at the court. She would bring cards, gifts, food, and clothing for M.R. Visitation was never held in the community because sometimes respondent would speak about the case, and when they tried to redirect her attention respondent would become aggressive in front of M.R. One visit was cut short by 15 minutes because M.R. became uncomfortable when respondent talked about the foster mother in a hostile manner. M.R. asked that the next two visits be canceled. In 2017, the visits were moved to a court building because respondent would become hostile at the agency.

¶ 11 Respondent was required to do random drops, but she did not attend all the drops. Respondent did not successfully complete services. Molina did not recommend unsupervised visits because of safety concerns and because respondent did not focus on M.R. during the visits. M.R. was removed from the first foster parent's home in February 2018, in part because of the bad relationship between the foster parent and respondent.

¶ 12 Molina's supervisor, Alexa Vander Hye, testified that in October 2017, Molina reported that she did not feel safe and asked Vander Hye to deescalate respondent. Although Vander Hye spoke to respondent, she could not calm down. M.R. appeared fearful and had to be removed from the room. Respondent also had slurred speech and smelled of alcohol at a visit. Respondent continually talked of the case in front of M.R. during visits, which was not appropriate. Sometimes respondent was very appropriate during the visits, but often she was not, and sometimes the police were called because staff did not feel safe. Vander Hye did not recommend unsupervised visits due to respondent's behavior during the visits.

¶ 13 M.R. expressed a desire to return home to respondent. Respondent was evaluated to determine whether she would be able to parent M.R. and, if the goal were changed to termination of parental rights, how that would affect M.R. At the time of the evaluation, M.R. was living with the first foster parent. During M.R.'s interview, she stated that she wanted to live with respondent but that she had a "drinking problem." She did not want to return home without ongoing court supervision. M.R. expressed sadness, frustration, and guilt over her separation from respondent. The evaluator concluded that there was a low likelihood respondent would be able to make the progress necessary to have M.R. returned home. However, completely severing her relationship with M.R. would likely cause M.R. emotional harm. It was recommended that supervised visits with respondent continue.

¶ 14 In March 2019, a client services plan noted that 13-year-old M.R. was living in a nonrelative preadoptive foster home and she was doing well. The current foster parents asked that visits remain at twice a month, and they facilitated all of the visits. M.R. was in therapy, and she was improving greatly. When M.R. was first placed in their home, the foster parents received a call from the school almost every day. As of March 12, 2019, they have not received any calls from the school. M.R. was involved in activities after school, and she no longer met the criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The foster parents stated that they would like to adopt M.R., and M.R. stated she would like to be adopted by her current foster parents.

¶ 15 M.R. was placed in the new foster home because her former foster parent did not protect her or ensure that she attended her therapy sessions. The current foster parents are supportive of M.R.'s relationship with respondent and offered to supervise M.R.'s visits with her. M.R. had her first visit in the community with respondent in March 2019 and was happy that "her parents were going to be all together."

¶ 16 Respondent testified on her own behalf. She acknowledged that she spoke of the case and her alcohol use during counseling sessions. She stated that she initially wanted M.R. to be with the first foster parent because she knew the person and her own family lived out of town. However, she had arguments with the first foster parent because M.R. was doing worse in school, and at one point respondent was prevented from seeing M.R. Respondent also stated that she did the drops and she would remind Molina about having to do the drops. Respondent was the one who called the police because she wanted to know why she could not see her child that day. Respondent stated that she completed drug treatment and parenting classes and completed a family recovery program. She included her certificates in an exhibit.

¶ 17 The trial court found respondent unfit for failure to make reasonable progress from July 2016 through June 2019.

¶ 18 The court then held a best interests hearing. At the hearing, Alexandra Galvez testified that she had been assigned to the case on September 4, 2018. M.R. is in the eighth grade and is doing well in school. She visits with respondent twice a month, and her foster family facilitates these visits. There was some concern because respondent talked constantly about the case in front of M.R. However, the visits will continue.

¶ 19 M.R.'s foster family consists of her foster mother Ashley, foster father Mo, foster siblings including a girl M.R.'s age, and an infant. There was a six-year-old foster child in the home, but the child accidentally drowned in a neighbor's pool. A DCFS investigation is still pending, but M.R. and the other foster children are allowed to stay in the foster home "at the moment." The home is safe and appropriate, and there are no concerns about M.R. remaining there. When asked...