People v. Samantha V. (In re A.V.)

2018 IL App (4th) 18-0464-U

In re A.V., Minor

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

NO. 4-18-0464

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

November 27, 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 the Circuit Court of McLean County

No. 17JA5

Honorable Kevin P. Fitzgerald, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Holder White and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: (1) The trial court did not err in finding respondent an unfit parent.

(2) The trial court did not err in terminating respondent's parental rights.

¶ 2 Respondent mother, Samantha V., appeals the orders finding her an unfit parent and terminating her parental rights to A.V. (born November 1, 2011). We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In January 2017, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship on behalf of A.V. According to the petition, A.V. was neglected while living with respondent as her environment was injurious to her welfare. The State alleged a "drug raid," in A.V.'s presence, resulted in respondent's arrest and incarceration for possession of heroin. The State alleged A.V.'s environment was injurious to her welfare as respondent had unresolved issues of substance abuse. The State further asserted A.V. was neglected in that she was not receiving proper educational, medical, and remedial care. A.V.'s father is not involved in her life and is not a party to this appeal.

¶ 5 The trial court entered a stipulated temporary custody order, placing temporary custody and guardianship of A.V. with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). In the order, the court found A.V. was present when a search warrant was served on respondent's paramour after heroin sales occurred in the residence. Respondent admitted being addicted to heroin.

¶ 6 In May 2018, the State filed a petition to terminate respondent's parental rights to A.V. The State alleged respondent was an unfit parent in that she: (1) failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to A.V.'s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2016)) and (2) failed to make reasonable progress toward A.V.'s return home during any nine-month period after the neglect adjudication, specifically from June 30, 2017, through March 30, 2018 (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West Supp. 2017)).

¶ 7 In June 2018, the trial court held a hearing as to respondent's fitness to parent A.V. Three witnesses testified on behalf of the State: Jessica Tomfohrde, Kirk Schweizer, and Tatiana Jones.

¶ 8 Tomfohrde testified she was fond of respondent and did not want to testify against her. Tomfohrde was testifying under subpoena. Tomfohrde's last contact with respondent was approximately three weeks before her testimony. Tomfohrde informed respondent about the subpoena. Their interaction was "like kind of a goodbye." Before questioning Tomfohrde, the prosecutor made the following statement for the record: "The state's attorney's office will notuse your statements given today under oath, nor any evidence derived from these statements, against you in any criminal prosecution."

¶ 9 According to Tomfohrde, she met respondent just under a year before her testimony. Tomfohrde and respondent lived in adjacent apartments at Labyrinth House, a transitional living facility for individuals recently released from incarceration or "a bad situation." Tomfohrde had just finished serving a felony driving under the influence (DUI) sentence. She admitted having a problem with alcohol and had multiple DUI convictions. Tomfohrde and respondent went to meetings together and developed a relationship.

¶ 10 Tomfohrde testified, in November 2017, she moved out of Labyrinth House and into a house. Respondent started visiting her there and stayed with her for periods of time. Respondent was around quite frequently. At other times, respondent stayed with her family. By January 2018, respondent stayed with Tomfohrde several days a week. In February, respondent stopped by "less and less." By March, respondent stayed "once a week or something." In late April or early May 2018, respondent asked Tomfohrde to provide urine for a screen for her. Tomfohrde agreed and provided urine for respondent three times.

¶ 11 On cross-examination, Tomfohrde testified she had four DUIs, including two in 2014. After the third DUI, her license was suspended or revoked. She did not have a valid license when she got her fourth DUI. Tomfohrde had no other criminal charges on her record. Tomfohrde denied using other drugs. Tomfohrde's last drink was 12 days before her testimony. She admitted struggling with her addiction to alcohol, having successfully completed treatment twice in her life.

¶ 12 Tomfohrde agreed she sent respondent a text message indicating the State'sAttorney subpoenaed her. Tomfohrde recalled telling respondent, in the text, they would discuss what Tomfohrde would say. Tomfohrde stated she would have to say respondent relapsed in November and December and stayed with her family to be better.

¶ 13 According to Tomfohrde, she and respondent were very good friends by early fall 2017. They had a "semi-romantic relationship for a period of time through probably like December." The relationship was not the type where they would have to break up. They "were both having issues and struggling with different things" in their lives. The relationship was "pretty toxic." Tomfohrde admitted being lonely. She was used to seeing respondent every day. Tomfohrde was worried about respondent and herself.

¶ 14 Tomfohrde testified respondent's drug of choice was heroin. Tomfohrde did not witness respondent use heroin, but she observed the paraphernalia and witnessed the effects. Tomfohrde testified that respondent used on a semi-regular basis.

¶ 15 According to Tomfohrde, by March 2018, respondent was no longer going to Tomfohrde's residence. The two continued to communicate via text and saw each other occasionally. Respondent still had some paraphernalia at Tomfohrde's house, such as a needle, a Baggie or two, and "some spoons and stuff." On March 7, 2018, Tomfohrde was frustrated. Respondent left that morning and said she would "be back in a couple hours." After respondent had not returned, Tomfohrde called her and learned respondent "was hanging out with [someone] that wasn't just a friend." Tomfohrde became very upset as she had been "lied to a lot." Tomfohrde placed the paraphernalia in a sink and lit them on fire, triggering a fire alarm and the arrival of individuals from the fire and police departments.

¶ 16 Kirk Schweizer, employed by the McLean County Adult Probation Department,testified respondent was his client starting in September 2017. She had been charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Respondent was to report to Schweizer once each month. Respondent attended her first scheduled appointment in September 2017. At that time, she resided in Labyrinth House. Respondent was scheduled to meet with Schweizer on October 11, 2017, but she did not attend. Schweizer contacted respondent by telephone and the two rescheduled the appointment for October 24. Respondent attended that appointment.

¶ 17 As of November 21, 2017, however, respondent stopped attending appointments with Schweizer. Schweizer was unable to make contact with respondent after the missed appointment. He also attempted to contact respondent by letters. Schweizer attempted to locate respondent by contacting her caseworker. No one had information on respondent. He "closed interest" in February 2018. Schweizer sent a violation report to Livingston County and he believed the county petitioned to revoke her probation. Schweizer assumed a warrant for respondent's arrest was issued, as he believed respondent turned herself in the week before his testimony.

¶ 18 Tatiana Jones, a caseworker with The Baby Fold, testified she was assigned respondent's case in September 2017 after respondent's previous caseworker changed positions. When Jones first took over the case, respondent was doing well. She was involved in her services. She was cooperating with substance-abuse treatment, counseling, and parenting classes. At the December 19, 2017, permanency hearing it was determined respondent was doing well enough to be found "fit but unable." The "unable" determination was made because respondent was living at Labyrinth House, where children were not allowed. Respondent thus did not have stable housing. When preparing the report before the meeting, Jones indicated respondentcompleted "treatment at Chestnut" in September, participated in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, and had negative screens. Respondent was maintaining a stable and legal income and working two jobs. Jones did not, however, know about respondent's November relapse.

¶ 19 According to Jones, respondent stopped communicating with her after a December 19 hearing. Respondent left Labyrinth House. In February 2018, Jones put respondent on a call-in schedule for drug screens. Respondent called in during the first week or so, but then stopped calling the second week of February. Respondent stopped attending counseling. She also lost one of her jobs, and Jones was unable to determine whether respondent continued to hold the second. The only post-December contact Jones had with respondent was when Jones supervised visits on January 30, 2018, and March 27, 2018, and during a family-team meeting on April 10, 2018. Respondent did not respond to any of Jones's calls or texts between those times.

¶ 20 On cross-examination, Jones testified respondent regularly visited with A.V., missing only a few visits. Respondent demonstrated appropriate parenting skills during those visits. Respondent also completed inpatient and outpatient substance-abuse treatment. Respondent completed parenting...