People v. Nicole B. (In re L.J.)

1

2024 IL App (4th) 240750-U

In re L.J., a Minor

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

No. 4-24-0750

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

September 10, 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 No. 22JA453 Honorable Erin B. Buhl, Judge Presiding.

Harris and Steigmann, Justices concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

KNECHT, JUSTICE.

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding (1) the trial court's finding of parental unfitness was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) respondent's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were either not properly before the court for review or not proven.

¶ 2 Respondent mother, Nicole B., appeals from the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her daughter, L.J. (born September 2022). On appeal, respondent argues (1) the attorneys appointed to represent her during the neglect and termination proceedings rendered ineffective assistance and (2) the court's finding of parental unfitness during the termination proceedings is against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons that follow we affirm the court's judgment.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A. Neglect Proceedings ¶ 5 One week after the minor's birth, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging the minor was neglected in that she was subject to an environment injurious to her welfare because respondent's "mental health issues *** prevent[ed] her from properly parenting, thus placing the minor at risk of harm." The trial court appointed respondent counsel and entered an order granting temporary custody to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). The minor was then adjudicated neglected in January 2023 and made a ward of the court in February 2023.

¶ 6 B. Motion to Terminate Parental Rights

¶ 7 In November 2023, the State filed a motion to terminate respondent's parental rights, which it later amended. In the amended motion, the State alleged respondent was an unfit parent in that she failed to (1) maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minor's welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2022)); (2) make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that caused the minor to be removed from her care during a nine-month period following the adjudication of neglected, namely, February 20 2023, to November 20, 2023 (id. § 1(D)(m)(i)); and (3) make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor to her care during a nine-month period following the adjudication of neglected, again namely, February 20, 2023 to November 20, 2023 (id. § 1(D)(m)(ii)). The State further alleged it was in the minor's best interest to terminate respondent's parental rights and appoint DCFS as guardian, with the power to consent to adoption.

¶ 8 C. Fitness Hearing

¶ 9 In February 2024, the trial court conducted a fitness hearing. The State moved for the court to take judicial notice of the pleadings and orders in the court file, which was granted over no objection. The State also moved for the court to admit an integrated assessment completed on November 1, 2022, three service plans dated November 2, 2022, February 15, 2023, and June 22, 2023, and certified hospital records, all of which were granted over no objection. And last, the State presented testimony from the caseworker who had been assigned to the minor's case since April 2023. Respondent did not present any evidence. The following is gleaned from the evidence presented.

¶ 10 Shortly after the minor's birth, the minor was brought into DCFS's care due to concerns with respondent's ability to safely care for the minor. The integrated assessment noted the following: "It was reported that [respondent] has developmental delays and diagnosed mental health concerns that inhibit her ability to safely parent and protect [the minor]. [Respondent] has had random and unpredictable outbursts which have prevented her from providing proper care for [the minor]." The caseworker, on cross-examination, explained the minor came into DCFS care due to an instability in respondent's mental health and an incident where she kicked a hospital nurse. The integrated assessment noted during an interview, respondent reported she accidently kicked the nurse. The integrated assessment also noted respondent reported having been previously diagnosed with "bipolar disorder, PTSD, ADD/ADHD, and insomnia" and respondent "continued to experience mood dysregulation, anxiety, and traumatic stress symptoms."

¶ 11 Respondent regularly attended in-person supervised visits with the minor after the minor was brought into DCFS's care. The visits occurred twice a week, and respondent would often bring toys and clothing for the minor. Between April 2023 and June 2023, respondent began missing visits, leaving visits early, and having behavioral issues during visits. As for the latter, the caseworker testified to incidents where respondent reported urinating and defecating on herself and then becoming upset when the case aides asked if she needed help. The caseworker also testified to an incident in July 2023 where respondent threw a wastebasket at a case aide. Respondent's visitations were reduced from twice a week to once a week in July 2023.

¶ 12 Around August 2023, respondent moved to Florida. The caseworker testified respondent later reported her paramour had done "something to her," and her "therapist" told her to leave town "if she want[ed] to live." The caseworker offered respondent assistance with domestic-violence services, which respondent declined out of reported fear. Respondent inquired about virtual visitations with the minor while she was in Florida, which the caseworker scheduled for once a week. The caseworker estimated respondent missed approximately 25% of the virtual visits. Respondent did not provide the minor with toys or clothing after leaving Illinois. The last in-person visit occurred in August 2023. The caseworker testified, immediately prior to the fitness hearing, she learned respondent was residing in Alabama.

¶ 13 As for recommended services, the caseworker testified respondent was informed of the importance of completing services upon the minor being brought into DCFS's care. The dispositional order directed respondent to cooperate with DCFS and its cooperating agencies and all recommended services. The caseworker testified she met with respondent upon being assigned to the minor's case and then "tr[ied] to set up-talk to her about her services" during visitations.

¶ 14 It was recommended respondent complete a mental-health assessment and individual therapy. The caseworker testified the previous caseworker referred respondent for a mental-health assessment, and respondent reported having seen a therapist. The caseworker did not, however, have documentation of respondent completing the assessment or seeing a therapist because respondent had not executed a proper release of information. The caseworker explained respondent initially refused to sign a release and then later, when court-ordered, signed a release "through the body of the release," as opposed to on the signature line, which the provider refused to accept. As a result, the caseworker referred respondent for another mental-health assessment in July 2023, which respondent did not complete. The caseworker testified she was not "aware of' respondent engaging in any mental-health treatment as of the date of the fitness hearing.

¶ 15 It was recommended respondent complete a psychological evaluation. The caseworker testified respondent attended an appointment for a psychological evaluation around July 2023 but reported her attorney told her not to talk to the psychologist. After respondent's attorney and the caseworker corrected respondent's misunderstanding, respondent talked to the psychologist about "planes in the sky" and then left the appointment without completing the evaluation. Respondent had not completed the evaluation as of the date of the fitness hearing.

¶ 16 It was recommended respondent cooperate with the agency assigned to monitor the welfare of the minor. The caseworker testified respondent communicated with her through text messages. She explained respondent would state her phone did not work or she could not talk when the caseworker called her. The caseworker testified respondent would often avoid contact during visitations by leaving early or reporting her attorney told her not to talk to the caseworker. After respondent moved to Florida, she continued to avoid contact during visitations by reporting her video and/or audio were no longer working when the caseworker attempted to speak with her. The caseworker had to rely upon text messages to make contact with respondent.

¶ 17 It was recommended respondent complete a parenting program. The caseworker testified the prior caseworker referred respondent for a parenting assessment. Respondent attended the assessment but had a "meltdown" and did not complete it. The provider indicated respondent could not be seen again until she had undergone mental-health treatment. Respondent had not completed a parenting program as of the date of the fitness hearing.

¶ 18 It was recommended respondent complete partner-abuse services. The integrated assessment noted there were reports of respondent and her paramour arguing at the hospital following the minor's birth and a report of respondent throwing a cup of water at her paramour. The integrated assessment also noted respondent reported she had no concerns of power and control or interpersonal violence...