People v. Pate (In re N.C.P.)

2018 IL App (4th) 170710-U

In re N.C.P., a Minor,

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

In re N.R.P., a Minor,

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

In re N.H., a Minor,

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

In re N.A.H., a Minor,

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

In re Nay. H., a Minor,

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

In re Nas. H., a Minor,

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

NO. 4-17-0710

NO. 4-17-0711

NO. 4-17-0712

NO. 4-17-0713

NO. 4-17-0714

NO. 4-17-0715 cons.

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

January 26, 2018

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from Circuit Court of Adams County

No. 16JA3

No. 16JA4

No. 16JA5

No. 17JA21 No. 17JA22

No. 17JA23

Honorable John C. Wooleyhan, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Steigmann and Knecht concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The circuit court's August 2017 neglect adjudication and revocation of continuance under supervision were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 In January 2016, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship as to N.C.P. (born in 2006), N.R.P. (born in 2007), and N.H. (born in 2009), the three oldest minor children of respondent, Nakia Pate, asserting the children were not receiving the proper education required by law. After an August 2016 adjudicatory hearing, the Adams County circuit court found the three minor children were neglected. At an October 2016 hearing, the court entered an order for continuance under supervision imposing several conditions on respondent. In March 2017, the State filed a petition to revoke supervision and motion for shelter care as to the three oldest minor children and petitions for the adjudication of wardship as to respondent's three youngest children, N.A.H. (born in 2012), Nay. H. (born in 2014), and Nas. H. (born 2014). After an August 2017 hearing, the court entered an adjudicatory order finding the three youngestchildren were neglected and revoking the continuance under supervision as to the three oldest children. At the September 2017 dispositional hearing, the court found respondent unfit, made all six minor children wards of the court, and placed their custody and guardianship with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).

¶ 3 Respondent appeals, contending the circuit court erred by finding (1) the three youngest children were neglected and (2) she violated the conditions of the order of continuance under supervision. We affirm.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 N.C.P.'s father is Tyrell Porter, and N.R.P's father is Tyrone Watson. Isaac Hazzard is the father of the other four children, N.H., N.A.H., Nay. H., and Nas. H. None of the fathers are a party to this appeal.

¶ 6 The State's January 2016 petitions for the adjudication of wardship of the three oldest children alleged the minor children were neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(a) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a) (West 2016)), in that the minor children were not receiving the proper education required by law. After an August 11, 2016, adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court adjudicated the oldest three children neglected, finding they were truants and attempts to improve their attendance had been unsuccessful. On October 3, 2016, the court held the dispositional hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court entered an order for continuance under supervision because the three oldest children had not had attendance issues during the current school year. See 705 ILCS 405/2-20 (West 2016). The court placed respondent under court supervision and imposed the following conditions: (1) cooperate with DCFS and follow the service plans; (2) keep DCFS advised of her current address; (3) undergo evaluations, complete counseling, and sign releases for informationrequested by DCFS; and (4) keep the children in Adams County, unless the court granted permission for them to leave.

¶ 7 The State's March 2017 petitions for adjudication of wardship as to the three youngest children alleged (1) the three older children were already "court-involved" due to chronic truancy; (2) the children were present for a physical fight between respondent and her partner, Michelle Rogers, which resulted in the State charging Rogers with aggravated domestic battery and domestic battery (People v. Rogers, No. 17-CF-265 (Cir. Ct. Adams Co.); (3) one of the minor children was eating ice cream from a garbage can; and (4) the home was in poor condition with clutter and garbage throughout. The March 2017 petition to revoke supervision in the cases involving the three oldest children alleged the aforementioned allegations, as well as the following: (1) respondent had refused to (a) update the caseworker about respondent's pending ordinance violation charges in Adams County case Nos. 17-OV-247 and 17-OV-248, (b) allow the caseworker to enter the family residence on several occasions, and (c) meet with the caseworker several times; and (2) the three oldest minor children have incurred absences over the last three months, specifically 9 days for N.C.P., 8 days for N.R.P., and 10 days for N.H. The State later struck the allegation one of the minor children was eating out of the garbage can from both the wardship petitions and the petition to revoke supervision.

¶ 8 On August 10, 2017, the circuit court held the adjudicatory hearing. At the State's request, the court took judicial notice of (1) its October 2016 supervision order; (2) respondent's case No. 17-OV-247, in which she was found guilty of the offense of selling tobacco to a minor; and (3) respondent's case No. 17-OV-248, in which she pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of cannabis. The State presented the testimony of Stephanie Yates, a Quincy police officer; Mark Foley, a DCFS investigator; and Lisa Sutton, a Quincy CatholicCharities intact family caseworker. It also presented several exhibits, including the information in Rogers's criminal case. The court took judicial notice of the fact that, in July 2017, Rogers pleaded guilty to the domestic battery charge and the court dismissed the aggravated battery charge. The State also presented certified copies of the three oldest children's school records, photographs of respondent after the domestic altercation, and the initial service plan. Respondent's only evidence was a copy of the initial service plan with Sutton's March 2017 ratings. The evidence relevant to the issues on appeal is set forth below.

¶ 9 Officer Yates testified she responded to a disturbance call on the evening of March 27, 2017, at 628 Spruce Street in Quincy, Illinois. Officer Robert McGee also responded to the call. As she approached the home, Officer Yates could hear yelling coming from inside of the residence. Officer Yates entered the residence through the back door, and Officer McGee entered through the front door. Upon entering, Officer Yates observed "[c]omplete chaos." She saw 9 to 11 children running around the living room, of which three jumped on her and two were "play fighting." Officer Yates also observed three adults arguing. In addition to the living room, the residence had a kitchen, a front room, and a back room.

¶ 10 Officer Yates spoke with respondent, who stated the police had been to the home earlier that day and told Rogers and her to stay in different parts of the home. Respondent described Rogers as her "live-in girlfriend," and they were in an intimate relationship. Respondent told Officer Yates Rogers came into the front room and started pointing her fingers in respondent's face. Rogers then began to choke respondent, and respondent could not breathe. After that, Rogers began to punch her in the face and pull her hair. At least two of the children witnessed the altercation, and Officer Yates spoke with N.C.P. and N.R.P. Both children said Rogers came in the front room and started yelling at their mom. Rogers pointed her fingers intheir mom's face, punched their mom, and pulled her hair.

¶ 11 After determining Rogers was the initial aggressor, Officer Yates took a video-recorded statement from respondent. Respondent stated the police had told Rogers to stay in her room and respondent to stay in the front room. She also noted Rogers caused damage to the residence; specifically, she broke the hinges off a door, broke respondent's television, and poured water on a laptop. Respondent again described the domestic altercation. After the altercation, respondent ran outside. When respondent came back inside the residence, she locked the door behind her, and Rogers broke into the home through a window. Officer Yates observed respondent had a bruise and a bump under her right eye.

¶ 12 Foley testified that, on March 26, 2017, DCFS received a report about respondent and her family, alleging substantial risk of harm and environmental neglect based on the condition of the family residence at the time of the domestic incident against both respondent and Rogers. Respondent was indicated for substantial risk of harm to all six of the minor children. DCFS indicated respondent because of the domestic battery incident in the home, as well as the fact the children were involved in the incident. During his investigation, Foley learned Rogers and her minor children were not supposed to be in the home. Respondent had agreed with the previous caseworker Rogers and her children would not be living in the home, and he discovered they all had been living in the home. The home was not large enough to house everyone, and...