People v. Matthew S. (In re A.S.)

• Docket Number: 4-23-0223
• Decision Date: 03 August 2023
• Citation: 2023 IL App (4th) 230223 U
• Parties: In re A.S., a Minor v. Matthew S., Respondent-Appellant. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee,
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

1

2023 IL App (4th) 230223-U

In re A.S., a Minor

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Matthew S., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 4-23-0223

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

August 3, 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 Ogle CountyNo. 20JA9Honorable John Benjamin Roe IV, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HARRISdelivered the judgment of the court.Justices Cavanagh and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

HARRIS, JUSTICE

¶ 1Held: Respondentfather's challenge to the trial court's personal jurisdiction over him at the time the court entered its adjudication and dispositional orders is barred by the doctrine of laches, and the court's judgment terminating respondent's parental rights is affirmed.

¶ 2Respondent, Matthew S., appeals from the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to his child, A.S.He argues the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him at the time of the underlying neglect adjudication and dispositional proceeding, and, as a result, all subsequent orders-including the court's adjudication, dispositional, and termination orders-are void and should be vacated.We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The record reflects Amanda N. is the biological mother of A.S., born in July 2014, and three other minors.In 2019 and 2020, the State initiated neglect proceedings involving A.S and her siblings.Relevant to this appeal, on June 15, 2020the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship in the present case, alleging A.S. was a neglected minor.At the time, A.S. was almost six years old and residing with Stephanie W., her maternal grandmother and guardian.The State's neglect allegations were based on claims that against the instructions of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services(DCFS), Stephanie W. allowed A.S. to have unsupervised contact with Amanda N. and Amanda N.'s paramour, David E. The State alleged David E. was an untreated sex offender and that both he and Amanda N. had previously been "indicated" by DCFS for, among other things, substantial risk of sexual abuse as to A.S.'s siblings.The State also alleged that the trial court previously found Amanda N. and David E. unfit, unable, and unwilling to care for A.S.'s siblings, and neither Amanda N. nor David E. were allowed unsupervised contact with those minors.

¶ 5The State's petition identified A.S.'s "potential fathers" as David E. and an individual named Jeremy P.It identified respondent as A.S.'s "alleged father" with an address of "2722 Rudeen Cl. Apartment 3, Rockford, IL 61108."

¶ 6 The same date the State filed its petition, the trial court conducted a shelter care hearing.Although respondent did not appear at the hearing, the State represented that he lived in Rockford and was provided notice of the hearing by DCFS.According to the State, respondent chose not to appear on the basis that he did not believe he was A.S.'s biological father.During the hearing, the court determined probable cause existed for the filing of the State's petition.It placed A.S. in the temporary custody of DCFS.

¶ 7 Following the trial court's ruling, the State asked that David E. provide a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample to determine whether he was A.S.'s biological father and it asserted it "would send a summons to [respondent], because he was the person initially named by the mother as the biological father of [A.S.]"The State also indicated it would attempt to obtain service on Jeremy P., the other "potential father" named in the petition.On June 15, 2020, the court entered a written order, requiring David E. to provide a DNA sample and ordering the State to "send a summons to"respondent and authorizing the State to serve Jeremy P. by publication.Following a hearing on July 14, 2020, the court entered another written order, granting the State"leave to publish on Jeremy [P.], [respondent,] and '[a]ll whom it may concern.'"Ultimately, the record fails to reflect respondent was ever served with a summons and a copy of the petition for adjudication of wardship, either personally, by publication, or otherwise.

¶ 8 On July 21, 2020, a DCFS family service plan was filed that included respondent as someone subject to the plan.His services included cooperating with DCFS, cooperating with DNA testing to determine paternity of A.S., and cooperating with an integrated assessment and any resulting recommendations.On September 15, 2020, a laboratory report was filed, showing David E. underwent DNA testing and results indicated he was not A.S.'s biological father.

¶ 9 On April 5, 2021, another service plan was filed in the case.With respect to respondent, the plan stated as follows: "[Respondent], alleged father of [A.S.], has expressed he would cooperate with a DNA test for [A.S.]; however, he failed to attend his appointment in October 2020.He has told DCFS he does not want to be involved in this case nor with [A.S.]" A service plan filed June 10, 2021, similarly stated respondent"failed to maintain contact with [DCFS]," failed to cooperate with DNA testing, and reported he did "not wish to be involved with DCFS or [A.S.]"

¶ 10 In April, May, and June 2021, the trial court conducted adjudicatory hearings in the matter.Respondent did not appear at the hearings.On June 15, 2021, the court entered an adjudication order, finding the State's petition was proven by a preponderance of the evidence and that A.S. was a neglected minor in that her environment was injurious to her welfare.

¶ 11 On June 22, 2021, a DCFS dispositional report was filed.It identified respondent as A.S.'s "putative father" and stated as follows: "[Respondent] has failed to maintain contact with [DCFS].He failed to cooperate with DNA testing for [A.S.] and has stated he does not wish to be involved with DCFS or A.S."On June 29, 2021, a court-appointed special advocate (CASA) report was also filed.With respect to respondent, the CASA report provided: "CASA has had no interaction with [respondent] and it is the understanding of this writer that he has not had contact with [A.S.] and does not wish to be involved with her."

¶ 12 In July, August, October, and November 2021, the trial court conducted dispositional hearings.On November 30, 2021, the court set forth its oral ruling, finding Amanda N. was unfit and unable to care for A.S.It also found David E., as the father of one of A.S.'s siblings who was also at issue in the proceedings, was unfit and unable to care for that minor.The court then granted the State's petition, made A.S. a ward of the court, and placed her in the custody and guardianship of DCFS.On December 8, 2021, the court's written dispositional order, which was consistent with its oral ruling, was filed.The record reflects respondent did not appear for the dispositional hearings, nor was he referenced in either the court's oral ruling or its written dispositional order.

¶ 13 On December 17, 2021, a DCFS status report was filed.With respect to respondent, it provided as follows:

"[Respondent] had contact with [DCFS] in the summer of 2020.[DCFS] located him at that time when [A.S.] first entered foster care.He stated that he did not want to be involved in [A.S.'s] life but would be willing to cooperate with paternity testing.He failed to attend two different appointment dates in order to complete the testing.He has not had contact with [DCFS] since that time."

¶ 14 The matter continued with references to respondent and his involvement in the case remaining unchanged until November 2022.On November 17, 2022, a DCFS permanency hearing report was filed, stating respondent had not been involved in A.S.'s life and that "a recent [Law Enforcement Agencies Data System] check" showed he had been arrested in June 2022 for failing to register as a sexual offender.The record shows the case was set for a permanency hearing on November 22, 2022.The appellate record contains no transcript of the hearing on that date; however, docket entries reflect respondent appeared before the trial court.The same date, the court entered a written order, stating as follows: "[Respondent] appears in person for the first time today.Court orders [respondent] to submit to paternity testing."The court then continued the permanency hearing to December 6, 2022, over DCFS's objection.While the record does not contain a transcript for the December 6 hearing, docket entries show respondent appeared at the hearing and provided a new address to the court.

¶ 15 Also on December 6, 2022, the State filed a petition for termination of parental rights and power to consent to adoption.It alleged both Amanda N. and respondent were unfit to parent A.S. and termination of their parental rights was in A.S.'s best interest.On January 24, 2023, the State filed an amended termination petition.Relevant to this appeal, the State alleged respondent was unfit for failing to (1) maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to A.S.'s welfare; (2) protect A.S. from conditions in her environment that were injurious to her welfare; (3) make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for A.S.'s removal from her home during any nine-month time period after the June 15, 2021, neglect adjudication; and (4) make reasonable progress toward A.S.'s return to his care within any nine-month period after the June 15, 2021, neglect adjudication.

¶ 16 Docket entries further reflect that respondent appeared before the trial court with counsel at hearings on January 26 and February 28, 2023.Again, the record does not contain transcripts of those...