People v. Margaret W. (In re S.W.)

1

2024 IL App (2d) 240214-U

In re S.W., a Minor

The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee v. Margaret W., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 2-24-0214

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District

August 21, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of McHenry County. No. 20-JA-121 Honorable Mary H. Nader, Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Hutchinson and Kennedy concurred in the judgment and opinion.

ORDER

BIRKETT, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: Neither the trial court's findings regarding the mother's unfitness nor the child's best interests were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 Respondent, Margaret W., appeals the judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County determining her to be unfit and terminating her parental rights to her minor child, S.W. On appeal, respondent challenges the trial court's decision to take judicial notice of the court file as insufficiently clear to ensure it considered only admissible non-hearsay, evidence and contends the overall unfitness finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Respondent also argues that the court's best interest finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence because it considered her fitness instead of the child's best interests and failed to account for the foster family preferentially receiving training to care for the child while she was denied that training or the strong mother-child bond between respondent and S.W. We affirm.

¶ 4 In January 2014, respondent gave birth to S.W. At that time, respondent and her husband, Sam W., had two other children. The oldest child was significantly impaired in his mental functioning by autism and required constant care. The middle child, C.W., was born in 2007 and was on the autism spectrum but attended school.^[1]

¶ 5 On November 16, 2020, S.W. was seen and treated for severe malnourishment by Dr. Sandeep Narang, a doctor with Children's Hospital Wisconsin. At the time of treatment S.W. was six years of age and weighed only 32 pounds. He had last been taken to see a doctor in 2018, and he was significantly malnourished with vitamin and protein deficiencies, osteopenia (weak bones), anemia, kwashiorkor, electrolyte imbalance, and concerns he could experience refeeding syndrome, and was provisionally diagnosed with a nonorganic failure to thrive. S.W.'s health issues were not suddenly emergent; rather, they developed over months or years to reach the level of severity that S.W. presented. Narang believed that S.W.'s case was one of the most serious he had ever treated. Narang diagnosed S.W. with malnutrition, secondary to neglect.

¶ 6 The record shows that respondent and Sam W. were legitimately and reasonably concerned that S.W. was autistic given their experience with their oldest child, who was formally diagnosed with autism and required 24-hour care. S.W. was difficult to feed, refusing to eat anything but cheese crackers and other crunchy foods. When S.W. did not get his way or had to leave the house, he typically threw a tantrum. Thus, when he was finally taken for medical treatment, he was not potty trained, had not attended school (having been homeschooled), and spoke words and was terse in his verbal communications. As S.W.'s treatment progressed, it was determined that he was not autistic, was able to form bonds with people, had a good vocabulary, and was not selectively mute. The record further shows that respondent and Sam W. disagreed with the diagnosis that S.W. was not autistic, attributed S.W.'s malnutrition to gastrointestinal medical issues, disagreed with proposed therapies and treatments, and were unable to accept their roles in S.W.'s health and nutritional issues.

¶ 7 As a result of S.W.'s health issues, on November 23, 2020, the State filed an abuse and neglect petition alleging that S.W. was neglected and not receiving proper or necessary support, education, or medical care necessary for his well-being, was in an environment injurious to his welfare, and alleging that S.W. was abused because the parents inflicted physical injury and created the substantial risk of physical injury. The State amended the petition three times during its pendency. On July 15, 2021, the State filed its third amended petition for adjudication and expedited termination of parental rights.

¶ 8 The adjudication phase of this case took an inordinate amount of time, in part, due to treating the S.W.'s many medical issues. During the pendency, the parents participated in recommended services. On July 29, 2022, the trial court issued its written adjudication decision, finding that S.W. was abused and neglected. The court expressly credited respondent with believing that her testimony during the adjudication hearing was true, but it also rejected the substance of her testimony as a manipulative attempt to convince it that S.W.'s condition was unavoidable. The court further found that both parents did not exercise the care needed under the circumstances. The court determined that the evidence overwhelmingly established that S.W. was abused because he experienced a lack of support, education, or remedial care, he was in an environment injurious to his welfare, and he was physically abused. Moreover, the court determined that respondent and Sam W. inflicted the abuse or neglect. The court, however, determined that the State had not proved that C.W. was neglected, and it dismissed the petition for adjudication as to C.W. and returned him to the parents' custody and care.

¶ 9 On October 6, 2022, the trial court entered a dispositional order. The court commented that both Lutheran Social Services of Illinois (Lutheran) and the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) had each separately emphasized that respondent and Sam W. needed to accept the diagnoses of the medical professionals treating S.W., the proposed treatment plans, and acknowledge that S.W.'s medical needs were complex, and they were to cooperate with the medical professionals and agencies involved in S.W.'s case. The court found that both parents had been participating in aspects of the recommended services, but it was concerned that the treatment plan did not appropriately address the parents' underlying problems and determined that additional services were necessary. It ordered a new service plan to be prepared because the original plan did not appropriately address the reasons that led S.W. to be taken into care. The court made S.W. a ward of the court and set a permanency goal of return home in 12 months. The court expressly admonished both parents to cooperate with the Department and to comply with the service plan to correct the conditions that required S.W.'s removal.

¶ 10 In December 2022, an additional service plan and permanency review was created and, on January 13, 2023, filed with the court. The plan acknowledged that the Department and Lutheran evaluated the parents' progress and efforts inconsistently, with the Department finding that the parents were making appropriate efforts and progress in the services, while Lutheran noted that the parents were arguing with S.W.'s diagnoses and refusing to cooperate, thereby making unsatisfactory efforts and progress.

¶ 11 On January 30, 2023, the trial court determined that respondent had made neither reasonable progress nor efforts. Respondent had outstanding uncompleted services, and the conditions of her home remained uncorrected; the court found respondent unfit and unable to care for S.W., but it did not change the goal of return home, and it determined that the planned services were appropriate to fulfill the return-home goal.

¶ 12 The Department completed a May 2023 permanency review and updated service plan. Respondent had completed parenting classes and continued to attend individual and family therapy. However, she remained either unwilling or incapable of providing S.W. an appropriate amount or variety of nutritious food, even after coaching. In addition, respondent persisted in believing that S.W. had underlying conditions that caused his medical issues, denied that she had not given S.W. sufficient nutrition, did not implement the recommended strategies and interventions she learned in parenting training, and refused to verbalize agreement with S.W.'s diagnoses and recommended course of treatment. The Department opined that respondent had not made reasonable progress in addressing the conditions that led to S.W. entering care.

¶ 13 On September 22, 2023, the trial court held a permanency hearing. It determined that the parents had not cooperated with the Department or done all that was asked of them. For example, they persisted keeping S.W. on their health insurance after requests to remove him which delayed S.W.'s treatment and medication and caused the foster family to have to pay out of pocket to timely provide S.W. necessary medicines and services. Similarly, the parents refused to change therapists after Lutheran terminated its contract with their then-therapist, they refused to implement the strategies and techniques that had been developed and were successful in facilitating S.W.'s eating, and they persisted in denying any accountability or responsibility for the conditions that led to S.W. being taken into care. Moreover, the court specifically found that respondent did not believe she needed to change anything in her approach to parenting and caring for S.W. The court determined that respondent had made neither reasonable efforts nor progress toward reunification, found her unfit and unable to care for S.W., and changed the permanency goal to substitute care. The State was granted leave to file a petition to terminate parental rights.

¶ 14 In a September 2023 permanency review and...