People v. Robert H. (In re H.H.)

2023 IL App (4th) 220896-U

In re H.H., a Minor

The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Robert H., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 4-22-0896

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

February 21, 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 Winnebago County No. 19JA228 Honorable Francis M. Martinez, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Turner and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

KNECHT, JUSTICE.

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court's findings respondent was an unfit parent and it was in the minor's best interest to terminate respondent's parental rights were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 Respondent father, Robert H., appeals from the trial court's judgment terminating his parental rights to his daughter, H.H. (born August 14, 2017). On appeal, respondent argues the trial court erred in finding (1) he was an unfit parent and (2) it was in the minor's best interest to terminate his parental rights. For the reasons that follow we affirm the trial court's judgment.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Respondent and Kristina P. are the minor's biological parents. The parental rights of the minor's mother were also terminated during the proceedings below. She is not however, a party to this appeal.

¶ 5 A. Motion to Terminate Parental Rights

¶ 6 In August 2022, the State filed a motion to terminate respondent's parental rights. In the motion, the State alleged respondent was an unfit parent in that he (1) failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minor's welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (b) (West 2020)) and (2) failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the minor during a nine-month period following the minor's adjudication of neglected, namely October 20, 2021, to July 20, 2022 (750 ILCS 50/1 (D)(m)(i) (West 2020)). The State further alleged it was in the minor's best interest to terminate respondent's parental rights and appoint the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) as guardian with the power to consent to adoption.

¶ 7 B. Fitness Hearing

¶ 8 In September 2022, the trial court conducted a fitness hearing. During the hearing, the court heard testimony from two DCFS caseworkers and respondent. In addition, the court was presented with multiple exhibits and took judicial notice of several records. The following is gleaned from the evidence before the court.

¶ 9 In October 2017, an incident of domestic violence occurred between respondent and the minor's mother. The minor was present during the incident. As a result, respondent was convicted of a criminal offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The minor's mother also obtained an order of protection against respondent, which respondent later violated.

¶ 10 In May 2019, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship. In the State's petition, the State alleged the minor was neglected in that she was (1) born with cocaine or a metabolite of said substance in her urine, blood, or meconium; (2) subject to an environment injurious to her welfare; and (3) left without supervision for an unreasonable period of time without regard to her health, safety, and welfare. The allegation that the minor was subject to an environment injurious to her welfare was based, in part, upon the minor's exposure to domestic violence between respondent and the minor's mother. Shortly after the filing of the State's petition, DCFS was granted temporary custody of the minor with the power to place. ¶ 11 In July 2019, respondent participated in an interview for an integrated assessment. During the interview, respondent reported his father was an alcoholic and had been abusive toward respondent and his siblings when they were children. Respondent also reported he started using marijuana and alcohol as a child and then cocaine as an adult. Respondent initially reported he had not used cocaine or marijuana since 2008; however, he later acknowledged using cocaine, as well as alcohol, in May 2019. Respondent's criminal history included convictions for offenses related to drugs, physical assault, and traffic violations. The integrated assessment, which was completed in October 2019, noted respondent "struggled to connect how his history and abuse and neglect and subsequent criminal behavior *** had any impact on his functioning throughout his life *** and how his role as a parent has been and could continue to be impacted." The assessment also noted respondent seemed "to exhibit serious and repeated problems related to disregard of social norms and violation of the rights of others." The assessment recommended respondent abstain from any substances and engage in a substance abuse program, mental health services, and domestic violence services. The assessment also recommended respondent attend and engage in visitations with the minor.

¶ 12 In October 2019, the trial court adjudicated the minor neglected based upon the allegations in the State's petition for adjudication of wardship, made the minor a ward of the court, and placed custody and guardianship with DCFS.

¶ 13 Based upon the integrated assessment, certain service recommendations were issued and incorporated into service plans. As of November 2021, it was recommended respondent (1) engage in substance abuse services, which included completing a substance abuse assessment and completing random drugs screens to demonstrate abstinence from alcohol and any illegal substances; (2) engage in individual counseling; (3) complete parenting classes; (4) cooperate with DCFS and its representatives; and (5) have no incidents of domestic violence. With respect to the latter, respondent had previously completed domestic violence classes.

¶ 14 Throughout 2022, respondent had no reported incidents of domestic violence and had been largely cooperative with DCFS and its representatives.

¶ 15 Respondent was referred to a session of parenting classes in early 2022 but was then discontinued from that session for failing to appear. Respondent reported he missed the session due to technology issues. Respondent was referred to another session of parenting classes. Respondent attended and completed the session in April 2022.

¶ 16 Respondent was initially not receptive to engaging in individual counseling. Respondent testified he later became receptive after learning the issues addressed in counseling would be different from those issues addressed during the parenting classes. Respondent was referred to individual counseling in early February 2022. Following the referral, a provider called respondent and left him a voicemail about scheduling him for a possible session. A caseworker also texted respondent about the provider needing to speak with him to schedule him for a session. Because the provider never heard from respondent, respondent was not scheduled for any session. He was then placed on a waitlist with that provider. He was also placed on a waitlist with another provider. Respondent testified he was not aware that he was placed on a waitlist with a second provider. A caseworker testified she spoke with respondent about the waitlist with the second provider and had him sign consents related to that provider. Respondent testified he called the first provider and learned he was not on a waitlist. A caseworker testified respondent continued to be on waitlists for individual counseling at the time of the fitness hearing.

¶ 17 Respondent completed a substance abuse assessment in March 2022. No services were recommended as a result of that assessment. Respondent then failed to attend a drug screen on April 6, 2022. Respondent reported he arrived at the testing facility and was turned away because the facility was closing. He was then directed to return the next day. Respondent did not return. Respondent testified he did not return because the testing facility would not have accepted him. On April 28, 2022, respondent tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on a drug screen. Upon inquiry about the positive result, respondent denied any drug use. As a result of the positive and missed drug screens, it was recommended respondent complete a new substance abuse assessment. Respondent did not complete the new assessment. Respondent failed to attend drug screens on May 26 and June 2, 2022. Respondent testified he did not remember missing the two drug screens but believed he provided explanations for missing those screens, such as work-related conflicts or health issues.

¶ 18 Before the minor could be placed in respondent's care, he had to attain appropriate housing for her. Sometime prior to 2022, respondent began living with his girlfriend and conveyed his intent to a caseworker for the minor to do the same. At that point, the caseworker advised respondent that his girlfriend would have to engage with DCFS prior to the minor being placed in the home with them. Throughout 2022, the minor's caseworkers repeatedly discussed with respondent the need for his girlfriend to engage with DCFS. Despite respondent's reported efforts to get his girlfriend to engage, she did not do so. In April 2022, a caseworker had a conversation with respondent about obtaining separate housing from the girlfriend to overcome the barrier of placing the minor in respondent's care. Respondent continued to live with his girlfriend, and respondent's girlfriend never engaged with DCFS.

¶ 19 Respondent attended supervised visitations with the minor. Overall, the visits went well. Respondent engaged with the minor and showed...