People v. Stefani D. (In re D.D.)

2022 IL App (4th) 220257

215 N.E.3d 302

465 Ill.Dec. 506

IN RE D.D., a Minor

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee,

v.Stefani D., Respondent-Appellant).

In re B.D., a Minor

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee,

v.Stefani D., Respondent-Appellant).

In re A.D., a Minor

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee,

v.Stefani D., Respondent-Appellant).

In re C.D., a Minor

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee,

v.Stefani D., Respondent-Appellant).

NOS. 4-22-0257

4-22-0258

4-22-0259

4-22-0260 cons.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Filed August 22, 2022

Gary D. McGuane, of DeKalb, for appellant.

J. Hanley, State's Attorney, of Rockford (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and James C. Majors, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 In November 2020, the State filed motions to terminate the parental rights of respondent, Stefani D., as to her minor children, D.D. (born September 2015), B.D. (born November 2014), A.D. (born September 2012), and C.D. (born September 2011). In May 2021, the circuit court found respondent was an unfit parent, and in March 2022, the court found it was in the minor children's best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights. The court also terminated the parental rights of the minor children's father, Michael D.; however, he is not a party to this appeal.

¶ 2 In these consolidated appeals, respondent argues (1) her due process rights were violated because the trial judge had previously presided over numerous hearings and had changed the goal to termination of parental rights, (2) the circuit court erred by finding her unfit because the State's evidence (a) contained multiple levels of hearsay that were inadmissible and (b) was insufficient to prove her unfit on all grounds, and (3) the circuit court erred by finding it was in the minor children's best interests to terminate her parental rights. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On January 23, 2019, the State filed separate petitions for the adjudication of wardship of the minor children. The petitions alleged the minor children were neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) ( 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2018)) because their environment was injurious to their welfare based on (1) the minors living in a residence "with old food all over the floors, couch, tables, and mattresses and with trash, dirty diapers, and cat feces on the floor and furniture and on the minors’ feet and the minors were wearing dirty clothing, thereby placing the minors at risk of harm" and (2) respondent previously failing to correct the unsanitary living conditions following the involvement of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).

¶ 5 At the shelter care hearing, respondent agreed there was (1) probable cause to believe the children were neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) as alleged in the petitions and (2) an immediate and urgent necessity to remove the children from the home. The circuit court accepted the admissions, finding probable cause of neglect and placing the children in the temporary custody of DCFS.

¶ 6 On April 18, 2019, the circuit court held a joint adjudication and dispositional hearing. The assistant state's attorney indicated an agreement existed for both adjudication and disposition. Respondent stipulated the minor children were neglected based on their unsanitary residence (count I). The court accepted respondent's stipulation, adjudicated the minor children neglected, and dismissed count II of the petition. The assistant state's attorney next recited the agreement respondent should be found unfit to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minor children; the minor children should be made wards of the court; and DCFS should be appointed as the minor children's guardian and custodian. The court accepted the agreement and entered a written dispositional order consistent with the agreement.

¶ 7 In November 2020, the State filed separate motions to terminate respondent's parental rights to each of the minor children. The motions collectively asserted respondent failed to (1) maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the children's welfare ( 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2020)); (2) protect the children from conditions within the environment injurious to their welfare ( 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(g) (West 2020)); (3) make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that caused the children to be removed during any nine-month period after the neglect adjudication, specifically, the periods of September 8, 2019, to June 8, 2020, and January 27, 2020, to October 27, 2020 ( 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2020)); and (4) make reasonable progress toward the return of the children during any nine-month period after the neglect adjudication, specifically, the periods of September 8, 2019, to June 8, 2020, and January 27, 2020, to October 27, 2020 (750 ILCS 50/1/(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020)).

¶ 8 A. Fitness Hearing

¶ 9 On March 4, 2021, the circuit court held the fitness hearing. The State called Zachary Chadwick, a supervisor at Children's Home and Aid. The State introduced the following exhibits, which were admitted without objection: (1) respondent's integrated assessment, dated April 3, 2019 (State's exhibit No. 1); (2) a service plan dated March 8, 2019 (State's exhibit No. 2); (3) a service plan dated April 1, 2019 (State's exhibit No. 3); (4) a service plan dated July 13, 2019 (State's exhibit No. 4); (5) a service plan dated January 10, 2020 (State's exhibit No. 5); (6) a service plan dated July 15, 2020 (State's exhibit No. 6); and (7) a service plan dated January 20, 2021 (State's exhibit No. 7).

¶ 10 The integrated assessment stated respondent had periodically lived in a vehicle with the four children, sometimes for days or weeks at a time. Additionally, respondent had been evicted from two houses due to her inability to keep the houses in a sanitary and hygienic condition. The service plan dated January 10, 2020, revealed respondent canceled eight individual counseling sessions and failed to appear on six occasions between July and November 2019 and therefore had been discharged. The service plan dated July 15, 2020, stated respondent required another referral for individual counseling due to her discharge and had been asked to complete a mental health assessment again. Collectively, the service plans showed respondent had never progressed to a point where she was able to have unsupervised visits with the children.

¶ 11 Chadwick testified the first service plan required respondent to (1) cooperate with the agency, (2) complete a parenting education course and follow recommendations, (3) complete a substance abuse assessment and follow any recommendations made, (4) complete any mental health services, (5) complete individual counseling, and (6) attend visits with the children. Although respondent maintained consistent contact with DCFS, completed parenting classes, and visited the children regularly, respondent failed to make progress in the area of mental health. Specifically, respondent was unsuccessfully discharged from family counseling in January 2020, and due to the agency's belief respondent had not been truthful in her initial mental health assessment, respondent had to take a second assessment, which had delayed her progress in this area. Respondent was never able to have unsupervised visits with the children because, according to Chadwick, "[i]t was not deemed, through case management or supervision, that [respondent] had made enough progress in the case to have *** helped correct the condition that brought the case into care."

¶ 12 The State also introduced State's exhibit Nos. 8, 9, and 10, which were packets documenting the investigations wherein respondent was indicated for environmental neglect of the children. The exhibits were admitted without objection. Collectively, the packets showed respondent had been indicated for environmental neglect in October 2012, April 2016, and January 2019. The January 2019 packet stated respondent had been arrested for possession of ecstasy and driving while her license was revoked while the children (ages seven, six, four, and three) were at home. According to the packet, an individual took food to the residence for the children and contacted police because of the condition of the home. The individual who reported the information described the home as follows:

"[T]he residence had old food all over the floors, couch, living room tables, mattress in [the] living room and *** dirty dishes on the sink. [Reporter] stated that there were pans with tobacco cut up in them with old noodles. [Reporter] stated that there was trash all over the floors, dirty used diapers on the floors and cat feces on the floor and furniture. [Reporter] stated that the children could get ahold of the trash, dirty diapers, old food and cat feces. [Reporter] stated that children had the cat feces and other stuff on their feet. [Reporter stated] that the odor was strong and smelled like cat urine and marijuana."

¶ 13 The State further requested the court take judicial notice of the neglect petition, adjudicatory and dispositional orders, and permanency review orders. The proceedings were thereafter continued to May 13, 2021.

¶ 14 At the continued fitness hearing, respondent testified she attended individual counseling with Sara LeDuc at Rosecrance and had completed parenting classes as recommended in her service plan. Respondent attended visits with all four children every week and was currently living with a friend and the friend's mother. Respondent later clarified she shared a bedroom with her friend and kept it clean.

¶ 15 On cross-examination, respondent admitted she had been asked to complete three mental health assessments because the agency believed respondent...