People v. Los (In re Z.H.)
| Decision Date | 25 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5-14-0497,5-14-0497 |
| Citation | 2015 IL App (5th) 140497 -U |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Parties | In re Z.H., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Joshua L., Respondent-Appellant). |
NOTICE
Decision filed 02/25/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Peti ion for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.
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 Christian County.
¶ 1 Held: The circuit court's determinations that the respondent was unfit and that termination of his parental rights was in the minor's best interests were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 The respondent, Joshua L., appeals the judgment of the circuit court of Christian County terminating his parental rights to Z.H. Counsel was appointed to represent Joshua L. on appeal. Appointed counsel has filed a motion with an attached memorandum pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there is no merit to the appeal and requesting leave to withdraw as counsel. See McCoy v.Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988). Joshua L. was given proper notice and was granted an extension of time to file briefs, objections, or any other documents supporting his appeal. He has not filed a response. We have considered appointed counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel on appeal and the attached memorandum. We have examined the entire record on appeal and find no error or potential grounds for appeal. For the following reasons, we now grant appointed counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Christian County.
¶ 3 We note that pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010), the decision in this case was due to be filed on or before August 24, 2014, absent a showing of good cause. Notice of appeal was filed in the circuit court on March 27, 2014, but was not transmitted to this court until October 3, 2014. On December 1, 2014, appointed counsel filed his motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders. This court entered an order granting Joshua L. the opportunity to respond to counsel's motion. As noted above, Joshua L. has not file a response. Based on the foregoing, we find that good cause exists for filing our decision after August 24, 2014.
¶ 5 Joshua L. and Krystal H. are the biological parents of Z.H.1 Z.H. was born on November 28, 2008, and immediately taken into protective custody. On December 1, 2008, the State filed a petition for the adjudication of wardship alleging that Z.H. was neglected as defined by section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (the Act)(705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2006)) in that both parents were registered sex offenders, that Krystal H. was bipolar and was not taking her medication, and that another child of Krystal H.'s had been removed from her care. Following a shelter care hearing, the circuit court gave temporary custody of Z.H. to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
¶ 6 The State subsequently filed two amended petitions for the adjudication of wardship. Count II of the second amended petition alleged that Z.H. was neglected in that another child of Krystal H.'s had been removed from her custody as a result of her lack of proper care, and that Krystal H. had surrendered her parental rights to the minor following the filing of a petition to terminate her parental rights to that child.
¶ 7 On November 18, 2009, the Joshua L. and Krystal H. appeared and stipulated to count II of the second amended petition for the adjudication of wardship, and the case was continued under supervision pursuant to section 2-20 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-20 (West 2008)). The court explained that in the event the parties violated the order of supervision, the State could seek to terminate supervision and, if the State prevailed, the court would enter an order adjudicating Z.H. neglected based on the stipulation. The court ordered the parents to complete psychological evaluations and comply with all recommended treatment and counseling, to cooperate with DCFS, and to comply with their service plans.
¶ 8 On March 24, 2010, the State filed a petition to revoke supervision, alleging that Joshua L. and Krystal H. had failed to comply with various terms of supervision, and that Joshua L. had threatened his caseworker. A hearing on the State's motion was held onOctober 13, 2010. Joshua L. appeared, but Krystal H. did not appear and was found in default. The court then entered an order of adjudication finding that Joshua L. and Krystal H. had stipulated to the allegation contained in count II of the second amended petition for the petition adjudication of wardship, and that Z.H. was neglected as defined by section 2-3(1)(b) of the Act. A dispositional hearing was scheduled for November 10, 2010.
¶ 9 After several continuances, a dispositional hearing was held on May 18, 2011. By agreement of the parties, custody and guardianship was given to DCFS with a permanency goal of returning Z.H. home within 12 months. On March 15, 2012, DCFS filed a permanency report stating that Joshua L. and Krystal H. "were now refusing all services, including visits with [Z.H.]," and noted that Joshua L.'s last visit with Z.H. was on January 4, 2012. The report recommended that the permanency goal be changed to substitute care pending termination of parental rights.
¶ 10 On March 28, 2012, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Joshua L. and Krystal H. Joshua L. failed to appear at the hearing on the petition, and the circuit court, after hearing testimony, found that Joshua L. and Krystal H. were unfit and that it was in Z.H.'s best interests to terminate their parental rights.
¶ 11 Both parents filed motions to set aside the termination of their parental rights, alleging that Krystal L.'s attorney had misinformed them of the date of the hearing. The circuit court granted the motion and set a new hearing on the petition to terminate.
¶ 12 On June 28, 2013, the State filed an amended petition to terminate parental rights. The amended petition alleged that Joshua L. was an unfit person in that he (1) failed tomaintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to Z.H.'s welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2012)), (2) failed to protect Z.H. from conditions within her environment which were injurious to her welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(g) (West 2012)), (3) failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of Z.H. within the first nine months following the adjudication of neglect (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2012)), (4) had abandoned Z.H. (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(a) (West 2012)), (5) failed to make reasonable progress toward Z.H.'s return during the nine-month period from August 1, 2011, to May 1, 2012 (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(iii) (West 2012)), and (6) failed to make reasonable progress toward Z.H.'s return during the nine-month period from May 1, 2012, to February 1, 2013 (id.).
¶ 13 A hearing on the amended petition to terminate was held on July 15, 2013. Through counsel, Joshua L. requested a change of venue and a continuance. When the circuit court denied these motions, Joshua L. left the courtroom. The court gave Joshua L.'s attorney an opportunity to convince Joshua L. to return to the courtroom, warning that the court would show a voluntary waiver of Joshua L.'s right to be present if he failed to do so. Joshua L. refused to return and the hearing proceeded in his absence.
¶ 14 Admitted into evidence without objection were the DCFS service plans covering the period from October 19, 2010, to April 11, 2012, and permanency hearing reports filed on February 22, 2011, July 25, 2011, February 17, 2012, and March 15, 2012. Tara Herbord, a social worker for DCFS, then testified as follows. She had been Z.H.'s caseworker since the child was born. DCFS prepared four service plans covering four different time periods. Each service plan was created with the goal of returning Z.H. toher parents and each plan specified a number of individual goals and tasks for each parent. Joshua L.'s service plans required him to maintain stable housing and a legal means of income, attend parenting counseling, have a drug assessment and undergo random drug tests, have a sex offender assessment, and attend visitation with Z.H. The only goals Joshua L. consistently achieved were maintaining stable housing and a legal means of income because he was on disability. He did not complete parenting classes, attend counseling, or undergo drug or sex offender assessments, and he submitted to only one random drug test. Joshua L. stopped meeting with Herbord in April of 2011, and the last time he had contact with Z.H. was January 4, 2012. Visitation stopped when DCFS had a concern with a cat being in the home. Herbord explained that Z.H. was allergic to cats and DCFS suggested that visitations occur elsewhere. Joshua L. refused to have visitation elsewhere and refused any more visits that were not in his home. Joshua L. expressed no interest in further visitations.
¶ 15 The circuit court found that Joshua L. was unfit in that he (1) failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to Z.H.'s welfare, (2) failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of Z.H. within the first nine months following the adjudication of neglect, (3) failed to make reasonable progress toward Z.H.'s return during the nine-month period from August 1, 2011, to May 1, 2012, and (4) failed to make reasonable progress toward Z.H.'s return during the nine-month period from May 1, 2012, to February 1, 2013. A best-interests hearing was set for October 21, 2013.
¶ 16...
To continue reading
Request your trial