People v. Tanea T. (In re Ta. T.)

2021 IL App (4th) 200658

187 N.E.3d 763

453 Ill.Dec. 310

IN RE TA. T., a Minor

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

v.Terrance T. and Tanea T., Respondents-Appellants).

In re T.T., a Minor

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

v.Terrance T. and Tanea T., Respondents-Appellants).

In re B.W., a Minor

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

v.Tanea T., Respondent-Appellant).

NOS. 4-20-0658

4-20-0660

4-20-0661

4-20-0662

4-20-0663 cons.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Filed May 19, 2021

Monica Hawkins, of Hawkins, Amero & Root, P.C., of Decatur, for appellants.

Scott Reuter, State's Attorney, of Decatur (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and David E. Mannchen, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

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

¶ 1 Respondent Terrance T. is the father of Ta. T. (born August 2012) and T.T. (born August 2017). Respondent Tanea T. is the mother of Ta. T., T.T., and B.W. (born February 2015). In August 2020, the trial court found both respondents were unfit parents, and in December 2020, it found termination of respondents’ parental rights would be in the minor children's best interests. Respondents appeal, arguing that the court's (1) fitness determinations and (2) best-interest determinations in each case were against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree and affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 A. Procedural History

¶ 4 In July 2018, the State filed separate petitions for adjudication of wardship, alleging, in relevant part, that Ta. T., T.T., and B.W. were neglected due to their being minors whose environment was injurious to their welfare when in the care of respondents because that environment exposed the minors to domestic violence. See 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2018). That same day, the trial court conducted a shelter care hearing and placed temporary custody and guardianship with the guardianship administrator of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).

¶ 5 In October 2018, the trial court conducted an adjudicatory hearing at which both respondents stipulated that domestic violence occurred in the presence of the children. The court found that Ta. T., T.T., and B.W. were neglected minors and ordered a dispositional hearing to be conducted immediately. At that dispositional hearing, the court entered a written order finding that it was in the best interest of Ta. T., T.T., B.W., and the public that the minor children be made wards of the court and adjudicated neglected minors. The court further found (1) respondents unfit and unable for reasons other than financial circumstances alone to care for, protect, train, educate, supervise, or discipline the minors and (2) it would be contrary to the minors’ health, safety, and best interest to be in their custody. The court placed guardianship and custody with the guardianship administrator of DCFS. The written order further admonished respondents that they were required to cooperate with DCFS and "comply with the terms of the service plan and correct the conditions that require the minor[s] to be in the care [sic ] or they risk termination of their parental rights."

¶ 6 B. The Termination Hearings

¶ 7 In February 2020, the State filed petitions in each case to terminate respondents’ parental rights. The State alleged respondents were unfit parents because they failed to (1) maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the children's welfare; (2) make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the bases for the removal of the children during any nine-month period following the adjudication of neglect; and (3) make reasonable progress toward the return of the children within the nine-month periods of October 2018 to July 2019 and April 2019 to January 2020. See 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b), (D)(m)(i)-(ii) (West 2018).

¶ 8 1. The Fitness Proceedings

¶ 9 In August 2020, the trial court conducted the fitness portion of the termination hearing.

¶ 10 a. Testimony About Terrance T.

¶ 11 i. The State's Evidence: Shimeka Foster

¶ 12 Shimeka Foster testified that she was the caseworker on the case for Webster Cantrell Youth Advocacy beginning in July 2019. Foster testified that the children came into care because Terrance had a domestic violence incident with his paramour while the children were present. Terrance was recommended for the following services: (1) parenting, (2) substance abuse and mental health assessment, (3) domestic violence, (4) housing, (5) employment, (6) visitation, (7) cooperation, and (8) anger management.

¶ 13 Foster testified that Terrance completed the mental health and substance abuse assessments with no further recommendations. Terrance had stable housing and employment for the life of the case. Foster stated that Terrance completed all his services. Terrance complied with the visitation schedule until December 2019. Foster described the "most important part" of Terrance's case as follows:

"It was mostly about his relationships. Seeing that the reason why the case came in was because of a domestic [violence incident] between him and another parent and the children were with him. The agency mostly had issues with his ongoing relationship that ended in, she would file an OP [(order of protection)], and then not go, file another OP then not go. We just had another DCFS investigation where they called and said that he was involved in another—with another lady so it's mostly because of the characters [sic ] of his relationships."

¶ 14 Foster explained that although Terrance had technically completed his domestic violence and anger management services, he did not "successfully" complete them because he had not absorbed or implemented any of the lessons from those services. Instead, "it's like [his behaviors] never stopped. It just kept going even after the finishing and completion of the services." Foster opined that it was not safe to return the children to his care and it would still not be safe if Terrance were given another six to nine months. Foster acknowledged that Terrance had completed all of his services and had his home prepared for the children to return home. Foster stated the following:

"But every time it seemed like I would get to that point something else would happen. The last time I saw him in December, I went through the new house and looked at everything. It was perfect for the kids. Then I get to the office and find out he has a warrant for meth[amphetamine] delivery. I'm like it's just—it's always something *** stopping me from sending those children home."

¶ 15 Foster stated that Terrance did not understand why the agency had "the issue of sending the children home with him."

"[W]e're telling him, hey, this relationship it can't happen. This is the reason why your children came into care. We have to make sure that they are in a safe environment away from domestic violence, away from drugs, away from anything that would cause them to be unsafe. He didn't understand that."

Foster further stated, "It's been over a year. There have been numerous, numerous times where I have sat down and, like, hey, this is what you need to do. *** Making sure that you change the characteristics that brought your children into care [in] the first place and nothing has changed."

¶ 16 On cross-examination, Foster acknowledged that Terrance had completed every service recommended, including a 25-week class on partner abuse. However, Foster explained that merely completing the classes was not as important as absorbing the information and making demonstrable changes. Foster agreed that Terrance completed most of his services in March 2019 and that the reports from his domestic violence services indicated that he had (1) admitted his past domestic violence, (2) acknowledged how he negatively impacted his partners, and (3) had no issues for 25 weeks.

¶ 17 Foster stated that the visits had gone well, although she placed them on hold in February 2020. Foster agreed Terrance had no pending domestic violence cases that she was aware of, though "he [was] fighting a meth delivery charge," and DCFS had recently sent Foster a domestic violence incident report. Foster stated that she did not think the children could be returned home within the next nine months because Terrance's behavior had been unchanged for the two years the case had been open and the children needed stability.

¶ 18 Foster explained that Terrance had three separate cases at DCFS and she could not get much information from anyone inside the agency about Terrance. Foster was the only one who spoke with Terrance. Foster stated that she was prepared to send the children home but the other caseworkers for his other cases "were seeing something different." Foster stated she was trying to sort out the difference in perspective and spoke with Terrance about DCFS's concerns as a whole. Specifically, she told Terrance that "they're looking at your relationships still with the person that you have altercation[s] with to bring your children into care. That was an issue throughout the majority of the case." Foster stated that when that relationship ended, the methamphetamine charge was discovered, and shortly after that, DCFS provided her with another report of a domestic violence incident with another girlfriend. Foster concluded, "[W]e have to look at all—every piece of the puzzle not just if he finishes his services[,] but if it's ongoing." Foster stated that her opinion was based on the other cases as well as what she had observed in the instant case.

¶ 19 Foster opined that after Terrance completed his services, he did not "look like he was incorporating what should have been taught or learned at those lessons into his lifestyle." The State did not present further evidence.

¶ 20 ii. Testimony of Terrance T.

¶ 21 Terrance testified that he had been in communication with Foster throughout the life of the case and had...