People v. Leah M. (In re D.M.)

1

2023 IL App (4th) 230639-U

In re D.M., a Minor

The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Leah M., Respondent-Appellant

No. 4-23-0639

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

November 22, 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 Livingston County No. 21JA40 Honorable Robert M. Travers, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Steigmann and Zenoff concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

TURNER JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court granted appellate counsel's motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court's judgment where no meritorious issues could be raised on appeal. The court's adjudication of neglect and its fitness and best interest findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 In October 2022, the State filed a motion to terminate the parental rights of respondent, Leah M., to her minor child D.M. (born in 2016). The child's father, Jesse C., is not a party to this appeal. In June 2023, the trial court granted the State's petition and terminated respondent's parental rights.

¶ 3 Respondent appealed. This court appointed counsel to represent respondent. Thereafter, counsel filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S 738 (1967), arguing respondent's appeal presents no potentially meritorious issues for review. We grant the motion and affirm the trial court's judgment.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 On July 28, 2021, Lyndie Champion, a child protection specialist with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), went to a medical center in Pontiac Illinois, in response to a call that a sex offender, David had access to D.M. At that time, respondent had a new baby, J.M., who was D.M.'s half-sibling. Staff at the medical center reported respondent made statements about the baby naming herself, including a middle name, based on a demon. Respondent told Champion she was diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder, bipolar disorder, depression, and impulse control disorder. Respondent stated she took Amitriptyline for severe migraines but did not like to take medications and could handle her "demons" on her own. Respondent had been living with D.M. at David's home, and David would not let DCFS employees inside. Respondent likened the home to a "hoarder's situation," stating there was trash and food everywhere because David did not like to clean. Respondent told Champion, because DCFS became involved, David did not want respondent at his home and she had nowhere to go and would be homeless. Respondent also reported when D.M. went to a father figure's home, he returned with bed bug bites on his legs and back. J.M. and D.M. were taken into protective custody. In June 2022, respondent surrendered her parental rights to J.M.

¶ 6 On July 29, 2021, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging D.M. was neglected under section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)), in that D.M.'s environment was injurious to his welfare. The State alleged respondent had mental-health issues preventing her from properly parenting, her housing lacked stability, and she allowed a subject with a history of sex offenses unsupervised access to D.M. The State further alleged D.M.'s living conditions were unsanitary, with a likelihood of harm to his health, physical well-being, or welfare.

¶ 7 On July 30, 2021, the trial court conducted a temporary custody hearing. Respondent did not appear. After hearing evidence, the court determined probable cause existed to believe D.M. was neglected and further found there was an immediate and urgent necessity for the safety and protection of D.M. The court also found it was in the best interest of D.M. to be in protective custody. The court entered a written temporary custody order placing guardianship with DCFS.

¶ 8 On January 4, 2022, the trial court held a dispositional hearing. Respondent admitted D.M. was neglected under two counts of the petition for adjudication of wardship. The court found respondent unfit because she had mental-health issues and lacked stable housing, preventing her from properly parenting. D.M. was made a ward of the court, with both guardianship and custody awarded to DCFS.

¶ 9 On October 26, 2022, the State filed a petition for termination of parental rights, alleging respondent was unfit (1) under section 1(D)(b) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2022)) because she failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility for D.M's welfare, (2) under sections 1(D)(m)(i) and (ii) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i)-(ii) (West 2022)) for (a) failure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of D.M. during a nine-month period after the adjudication of neglect and (b) failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of D.M. to her care during a nine-month period after the adjudication of neglect, and (3) under section 1(D)(p) of the Adoption Act because she was unable to discharge parental responsibilities due to mental illness (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(p) (West 2022)). The State alleged a nine-month period of January 4, 2022, to October 4, 2022.

¶ 10 On May 19, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the petition. Pepper Falatko, a foster care placement worker for DCFS, testified she had been D.M.'s caseworker since the case was opened. Under an integrative assessment and service plan, respondent was to complete mental-health services and a parenting class, maintain stable housing, cooperate with DCFS, and engage in visitation.

¶ 11 Falatko testified respondent never regularly engaged in services. Respondent saw her physician but refused to engage in mental-health counseling. Respondent was taking Amitriptyline but refused to take any other prescribed medications. Falatko also observed respondent engage in several outbursts, yell during meetings, and refuse to cooperate. During a mental-health evaluation, respondent made threats to blow up the building.

¶ 12 Falatko testified respondent did not attend parenting classes and told Falatko she did not need a parenting class because she had movies and games. Respondent also told Falatko she did not believe D.M. should be in school. Respondent brought unhealthy food for D.M. to visits and sometimes did not engage with D.M.

¶ 13 Respondent had canceled roughly 50% of her visits and had not visited D.M. since October 5, 2022. After an incident where respondent yelled at Falatko and a supervisor, respondent was asked to take medication for 30 days and then resume visitation. However, respondent was uncooperative, and she had not met with Falatko since November 4, 2022, or returned her phone calls. Before that time, respondent also would not allow Falatko to see the inside of her apartment. Respondent did nothing throughout the case to provide for D.M.'s basic needs.

¶ 14 Falatko opined respondent did not show any reasonable level of parenting ability or any ability to act appropriately within society. Respondent did not show a normal level of interest in D.M. or in his needs and wants.

¶ 15 Respondent testified she never received a call about the parenting class. She said she did not own a vehicle, so if a parenting class was outside of her town, she could not get there, and DCFS never offered her a ride to the class. Respondent testified she would have completed the parenting class if arrangements had been made. She also testified she was currently prescribed Amitriptyline and another type of medicine that she could not recall, which she had been taking for approximately six months. She believed the medications helped her with her relationships with other people and she had not had any outbursts while taking the medications.

¶ 16 Respondent testified she participated in counseling for about a month and the counselor suggested respondent's adoptive mother, who lived in Florida, be included in the counseling. Since respondent's adoptive mother could not be involved, respondent refused to participate further.

¶ 17 Respondent said she refused to communicate with DCFS because her counselor told her to avoid her triggers and DCFS was a trigger. She testified she was willing to complete everything that DCFS wanted her to do as long as she did not get triggered. Respondent admitted she got a new phone number in December 2022 but did not reach out to DCFS to give them the new number. She also continued to receive the service plans and letters from DCFS, but she did not reach out to them.

¶ 18 Respondent admitted her last visit with D.M. was on October 5, 2022. Respondent testified she played games with D.M. and read to him. She purchased D.M. a pair of sandals, and they normally went to restaurants, where she paid for his food.

¶ 19 The trial court found respondent failed to show a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to D.M.'s welfare and failed to make reasonable efforts and reasonable progress toward the return of D.M. within nine months. As a result, the court found her unfit.

¶ 20 On June 23, 2023, the trial court held the best interest portion of the hearing. Respondent reported she had car trouble and was not present. Falatko submitted a report specially addressing the statutory factors applicable to the best interest determination and recommending termination of respondent's parental rights. Falatko testified D.M. was placed in foster care with J.M. and DCFS wanted to keep the children together. The best interest report showed D.M. had resided with his foster family for almost two...