People v. Rachel L. (In re R.J.)

1

2024 IL App (4th) 231556-U

In re R.J., a Minor

The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Rachel L., Respondent-Appellant

No. 4-23-1556

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

May 17, 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. 18JA381 Honorable Francis M. Martinez, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Cavanagh and Justice Steigmann concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

DeARMOND JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding (1) the trial court did not err in admitting certain service plans and (2) the unfitness and best interest determinations were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 In November 2023, the State filed a motion to terminate the parental rights of respondent mother, Rachel L., to her daughter, R.J. (born December 2013). The trial court found respondent to be an unfit parent pursuant to section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2022)) and it was in the child's best interest to terminate respondent's parental rights.

¶ 3 Respondent appeals, arguing (1) the trial court erred by admitting and considering "multi-level hearsay" and (2) the unfitness and best interest findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 In October 2018, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging R.J. (born December 2013) was a neglected minor whose environment was injurious to her welfare pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2018)). The State alleged (1) one of R.J.'s siblings suffered a femur fracture "not consistent with the explanation provided" and (2) R.J.'s sibling was not receiving proper education or medical care. An amended petition further alleged R.J.'s environment was injurious to her welfare in that respondent made R.J. and/or her siblings sit in a closet for extended periods as a punishment. R.J. was adjudicated neglected, and a dispositional order made R.J. a ward of the court and placed custody with the guardianship administrator of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). (We note R.J.'s putative father was defaulted, and he is not a party to this appeal.)

¶ 6 In November 2023, the State filed a motion for termination of parental rights. The petition alleged respondent was unfit for failing to make reasonable progress during a nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect. The State alleged the nine-month periods as April 29, 2019, to January 29, 2020; January 9, 2020, to October 9, 2020; October 29 2021, to July 29, 2022; July 29, 2022, to April 29, 2023; and December 27, 2022, to September 27, 2023 (collectively, the relevant time periods). (The original petition contained a scrivener's error in the dates, which was later resolved.)

¶ 7 A. Fitness Hearing

¶ 8 1. The State 's Evidence

¶ 9 At the November 2023 fitness hearing, the State asked the trial court to take judicial notice of the neglect petition and amended neglect petition, the temporary custody order, the adjudicatory order, the dispositional order, and the permanency review orders filed during the life of the case. The State also moved to admit the certified copy of the indicated packet, which was admitted without objection.

¶ 10 Elizabeth Tevis testified she was a supervisor at Camelot Care Centers and had been R.J.'s caseworker since May 2023. Tevis had reviewed the case history and all prior reports and packets. Based on Tevis's statements, the State moved to admit the integrated assessment and the service plans from the life of the case, which were admitted without objection. Based on the integrated assessment, respondent was required to cooperate with the agency, engage in visitation, and complete mental health and parenting services. Respondent remained in contact with the agency throughout the case, though at times her contact was minimal. Respondent completed a parenting capacity assessment and psychological assessment. Respondent completed a parenting class for abusive parents. When asked if she had concerns about respondent's application of the class, Tevis explained:

"There have been throughout the life of the case several instances where mom's understanding of the children's needs were in question, as far as developmental, like where the children fell developmentally, what medication they did or did not need, as well as some conversations that she would have around the children, such as placing her emotions on the children as if it were their emotions."

Respondent successfully completed two other parenting programs. She was recommended for a parenting coach, and she engaged with parenting coaches beginning in January 2022, but there was not a consistent coach due to scheduling conflicts. By January 2023, respondent was not "fully participating" with the parenting coach, and respondent was discharged unsuccessfully in March 2023. When asked to engage with another parenting coach, respondent declined. When asked to explain the agency's concerns despite respondent's participation in services, Tevis stated, "Again, it's just still her lack of understanding of what she believes the children need versus what professionals tell us what her children need." Specifically, R.J. had been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and an unspecified learning disorder. After an Individual Education Program (IEP) meeting for R.J., where staff members explained how far behind R.J. was in school and the necessity of the IEP, respondent "still stated that she didn't see the child that everybody else was seeing and didn't feel that [R.J.] had those concerns."

¶ 11 Tevis explained respondent would bring up overnight visits and unsupervised visits with R.J. unprompted, causing R.J. a lot of confusion. Respondent was regular with her visits with R.J. and did progress to unsupervised visitation in July 2022. However, after October 2022, respondent was returned to supervised visitation due to escalating behaviors R.J. was having at school and in the foster home. After R.J. was returned to supervised visits, "[t]he majority of the behaviors did stop."

¶ 12 Tevis explained respondent was still required to complete "individual therapy successfully with her understanding why she's in therapy, *** and demonstrating what she's learned from individual therapy," as well as parenting coaching and a psychiatric assessment. Tevis stated the agency had concerns about respondent's mental health services. Though respondent had been in individual therapy since September 2019, the agency had concerns about "her lack of knowledge of things that she has learned, as well as her behavior not changing throughout all of those years in therapy." The agency referred respondent to a different therapist for individual therapy in April or May 2023 due to a lack of progress. The agency still had concerns about respondent's ability to parent R.J., particularly regarding her educational and behavioral needs. Respondent had expressed on several occasions "she feels that medication is like giving kids cocaine, and that she does not feel her children need the medication," and the agency was concerned R.J. would not get the medication or educational support she needed if she were returned to respondent's care.

¶ 13 On cross-examination, Tevis acknowledged respondent's therapist stated respondent was making progress and "Camelot is the issue, not [respondent]." However, Tevis explained she disagreed with the therapist because professionals at Brightpoint and school personnel reported the same behavior for respondent, and respondent's "therapist was the only one that didn't have concerns." Tevis explained a parenting coach also felt respondent was doing well, leading to the return of two older children to respondent's care. However, after the older children were returned, the parenting coach started to see respondent struggling with parenting the children. Respondent began telling the parenting coach she did not need her and she did not need services.

¶ 14 Tevis also explained the differences between the children who were returned home and R.J. and her younger sibling, for whom respondent's parental rights were also terminated (see In re J.J., 2023 IL App (4th) 230596-U):

"The needs are different. The agency had concerns about her son [M.J.] returning home. But the agency was put in a situation where he was either to go home with his mom or go to residential because the foster home would not keep him based on behaviors. [M.J.] notably only allowed his mother to really parent him because of the relationship that they had. The relationship is not there with [R.J.], nor was it with her younger brother [(J.J.)], which was kind of the sole purpose in separating those children from the older two. They had a more established relationship with mom and seemed more eager to go home.

That's not the case for [R.J.] There is a lack of bond there. [R.J.] on several occasions has talked about wanting to be adopted, wanting to stay in her foster home. She has notably throughout the case made comments about [respondent] not hugging her enough or telling her that she loves her, and feeling left out."

Tevis also noted R.J. was a "very big people pleaser" and would tell people different things based on what she thought they wanted to hear. She acknowledged R.J. has said on occasion she wants to be with respondent, but the "majority of the time she is reporting that she does not want to be there and she wants to be adopted." Tevis discussed how, although...