People v. Kayla D. (In re Y.C.)

1

2024 IL App (4th) 240701-U

In re Y.C., D.C., T.C., and L.C., Minors

The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Kayla D., Respondent-Appellant

Nos. 4-24-0701, 4-24-0702, 4-24-0703, 4-24-0704

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

September 12, 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 Winnebago County Nos. 23JA427 23JA428, 23JA429, 23JA430 Honorable Francis M. Martinez Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Knecht and Grischow concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

DeARMOND JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court granted appellate counsel's motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court's adjudicatory and dispositional orders because no meritorious argument could be raised on appeal.

¶ 2 In November 2023, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship alleging the minors, Y.C. (born in January 2022), D.C. (born in November 2018), T.C. (born in May 2014), and L.C. (born in June 2013), were neglected. The trial court adjudicated the minors neglected and found respondent, Kayla D., unfit and unable to have custody of them.

¶ 3 Respondent appealed in each case and the appeals were consolidated for review. The minors' father is not a party to this appeal. Respondent's appointed counsel has now filed a motion for leave to withdraw with a supporting brief pursuant to Anders v California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re S.M., 314 Ill.App.3d 682, 685-86, 732 N.E.2d 140, 143 (2000) (holding Anders applies to findings of parental unfitness and setting forth the procedure for appellate counsel to follow when seeking to withdraw). In his supporting brief, appellate counsel contends "no viable and non-frivolous grounds for appeal exist." We agree, grant appellate counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirm the trial court's judgment.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 On November 22, 2023, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship, seeking to adjudicate the minors neglected under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)). The petitions alleged the minors' environment was injurious to their welfare because (1) respondent had a history of placing them at risk of harm by engaging in acts of domestic violence, (2) their father had a history of placing them at risk by engaging in acts of domestic violence, and (3) they had been left at home alone for an unreasonable period of time (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2022)). As to YC. and D.C., the State also alleged their environment was injurious to their welfare because they were under 14 years of age and were left alone without supervision for an unreasonable period of time without regard for their mental or physical health, safety, or welfare (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(d) (West 2022)).

¶ 6 The trial court held a shelter care hearing on the same day the petitions were filed. Respondent was appointed counsel and waived her right to the hearing. The court entered an order placing temporary custody and guardianship with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).

¶ 7 On February 29, 2024, the trial court conducted an adjudicatory hearing. At the hearing, the minors' father stipulated to count II of each of the petitions, which alleged his acts of domestic violence had placed the minors at risk of harm.

¶ 8 Without objection by respondent, the State then introduced documentary evidence, including: (1) three group exhibits containing indicated child abuse or neglect reports from DCFS; (2) certified copies of six criminal complaints charging respondent with various offenses, including harassment through electronic communication (720 ILCS 5/26.5-3(a)(5) (West 2022)), three counts of endangering the life or health of a child (720 ILCS 5/12C-5(a)(1) (West 2022)), aggravated assault (720 ILCS 5/12-2(c)(1) (West 2022)), criminal damage to property (720 ILCS 5/21-1(a)(1) (West 2022)), and domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2016)); (3) a certified copy of a petition for a stalking no contact order; and (4) certified copies of three petitions for orders of protection. After the trial court admitted the evidence, the State rested.

¶ 9 Respondent then testified she did not leave her children unattended. When police officers arrived to serve eviction papers, she was outside her house, sitting in her car. YC. and D.C. were sleeping inside the house at the time. Respondent testified she got out of her car when the police officers called her. Respondent acknowledged she left YC. and D.C. outside at her home on a separate occasion to go to her neighbor's house to get diapers, but she testified her cousin was arriving at the house as she left. Respondent also denied engaging in acts of domestic violence. Respondent testified she always ensured her children were safe if any violence occurred.

¶ 10 The trial court took the matter under advisement to review the evidence presented by the parties. On March 28, 2024, the court conducted a hearing and found the minors neglected. The court found respondent's testimony was not credible because she minimized the clear domestic violence issues between respondent and the minors' father. The court also found the evidence established the minors were left alone prior to the arrival of police officers to conduct an eviction. Based on the evidence presented, the court concluded the State had proved all counts of the petitions by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the court entered an order adjudicating the minors neglected.

¶ 11 On April 24, 2024, the trial court conducted a dispositional hearing. The State asked the court to take judicial notice of the adjudicatory hearing, the integrated assessment, and two reports filed by respondent's caseworker following the integrated assessment. The court took judicial notice of those documents without objection by respondent.

¶ 12 The integrated assessment, completed on February 14, 2024, recommended respondent complete random drug screenings, complete domestic violence services, participate in individual psychotherapy, complete a parenting education course, participate in parent coaching, and participate in supervised visitation. The first caseworker report, dated March 19, 2024, indicated respondent had been arrested on February 2, 2024, and was participating in a trade class while in custody. The report noted respondent also expressed interest in participating in a parenting course while in jail. The second caseworker report, dated April 16, 2024, indicated respondent had been released from custody on April 5, 2024.

¶ 13 According to a proffer from respondent's counsel, respondent would testify she was currently employed at McDonald's, took a parenting course while incarcerated, was willing to sign releases as required by the integrated assessment, and now understood her responsibility to supervise the children. Respondent would have also testified she believed the agency was responsible for any delay in starting her services.

¶ 14 Following argument by the parties, the trial court found respondent had not completed or shown sufficient progress toward completion of the required services. The court, therefore, concluded respondent was currently unfit or unable to have custody of the minors. The court entered a written dispositional order making the minors wards of the court and placing custody and guardianship with DCFS.

¶ 15 Respondent filed timely notices of appeal in all four cases, and counsel was appointed to represent her on appeal. This court subsequently consolidated the appeals on the motion of respondent's counsel. On June 24, 2024, appellate counsel filed a motion for leave to withdraw and a supporting brief, asserting no viable or nonfrivolous grounds for appeal exist in this case. Appellate counsel provided proof of service of his motion and supporting brief on respondent, and this court granted respondent the opportunity to file a response. Respondent has not filed a response.

¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 17 Appellate counsel seeks to withdraw, contending there are no arguably meritorious issues for appeal. Under S.M. and Anders, counsel's request to withdraw must" 'be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.'" S.M., 314 Ill.App.3d at 685 (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). Counsel is required to (1) briefly set forth the arguments supporting any potential issue on appeal, (2) explain the reasons those arguments are frivolous, and (3) conclude the case presents no viable grounds for appeal. S.M., 314 Ill.App.3d at 685.

¶ 18 In his brief in support of his motion, appellate counsel states he has reviewed the record and no viable or nonfrivolous grounds for appeal exist. Counsel asserts there are no meritorious arguments challenging (1) the admissibility of the documentary evidence presented by the State at the adjudicatory hearing, (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's finding of neglect, or (3) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's dispositional order. For the following reasons, we agree this appeal presents no issue of arguable merit.

¶ 19 The Juvenile Court Act sets forth a two-step process for deciding whether a minor should be removed from a parent's custody and made a ward of the court. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 18, 981 N.E.2d 336. The first step is the adjudicatory hearing, where the trial court considers only whether the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent. A.P, 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 19 (quoting 705 ILCS 405/2-18(1) (West 2010)). If the trial court determines a minor is abused, neglected, or dependent, it...