People v. Matthew W. (In re A.W.)
| Docket Number | 4-23-0354 |
| Decision Date | 18 September 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 IL App (4th) 230354 U |
| Parties | In re A.W., a Minor v. Matthew W., Respondent-Appellant The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
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 Winnebago County No. 19JA491 Honorable Francis M. Martinez, Judge Presiding.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: Pursuant to Anders v. California 386 U.S. 738 (1967), the appellate court granted counsel's motion to withdraw because no meritorious issues could be raised on appeal.
¶ 2 Respondent, Matthew W, is the father of A.W. (born May 2016). In April 2023, the trial court found respondent was an unfit parent under the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1 et seq. (West 2022)) and that termination of respondent's parental rights was in A.W.'s best interest.
¶ 3 Respondent appealed the trial court's order terminating his parental rights, and respondent's counsel on appeal has now moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re S.M., 314 Ill.App.3d 682, 685-86, 732 N.E.2d 140, 143 (2000) (). In his brief, appellate counsel contends that appeal of this case presents no potentially meritorious issues for review. We agree. Accordingly, we grant appellate counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 5 We note that A.W.'s mother, Tanya S., has filed a separate appeal. We affirmed the termination of her parental rights in In re M.P., No. 2023 IL App (4th) 230327-U. We address the facts relating to Tanya only to the extent they are relevant here.
¶ 7 In November 2019, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship, alleging that A.W. was neglected because he lived in an environment that was injurious to his welfare in that he "reside[d] in a home where domestic violence is engaged in, thereby placing [him] at risk of harm" (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2018)). The State filed similar petitions regarding A.W.'s younger half-sister, M.P., and his older half-brother, C.N.; those petitions are not at issue in this appeal. Respondent appeared at the December 2019 arraignment, and the trial court appointed counsel for him. Two weeks after the petition's filing, the court conducted a shelter care hearing and placed temporary guardianship and custody of A.W with the guardianship administrator of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
¶ 8 In August 2020, the trial court adjudicated A.W. and his half-siblings neglected minors.
¶ 9 Respondent was not present at the hearing. Tanya S., the mother of A.W. and his half-siblings, stipulated to the sole count in the three petitions-that the environment of the minors, including A.W., was injurious due to domestic violence. She further stipulated that the DCFS statement of facts provided a factual basis for the stipulation. Counsel for respondent was silent concerning the stipulation; Timothy P., the father of M.P., had no objection to the stipulation.
¶ 10 According to the DCFS statement, Tanya and Timothy had an argument over a woman with whom Timothy was involved. Tanya then went to lie down next to M.P., and Timothy threw an ash tray toward the two of them. Tanya took M.P. into the kitchen; Timothy started" 'whacking'" Tanya. He then hit her repeatedly and choked her. A.W. came into the kitchen while this was happening. Timothy hit Tanya several times on the head with a gun and told her she was going to die. He then turned the gun toward himself and told Tanya to pull the trigger. He started "throwing her around again," but she called the police. He kicked holes in the walls and wrote slurs, including "crack head" and "slut," on the walls. Timothy left the house before the police arrived, taking M.P. with him. He left M.P. at the home of a relative. An investigator interviewed A.W. the next day. He said he thought Timonthy was going to kill Tanya. He said there had been "fighting" between the two in the past. Tanya was uncooperative with a request that she take a drug screening test and angry because she believed she was the victim in the situation.
¶ 11 In December 2020 and January 2021, the trial court conducted dispositional hearings. In February 2021, it entered an order finding respondent unfit and unable for reasons other than financial circumstances alone to care for, protect, train, educate, supervise, or discipline A.W. The court also made A.W. a ward of the court and placed his custody and guardianship with the guardianship administrator of DCFS. The court admonished the parties present that they needed to cooperate with DCFS and complete services or risk termination of their parental rights. ¶ 12 B. The Petition for Termination of Parental Rights
¶ 13 In December 2022, the State filed a petition to terminate respondent's parental rights. The State alleged respondent was an unfit parent within the meaning of the Adoption Act due to his (1) failure to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of A.W. from "the parent" during three nine-month periods following the adjudication of neglect-specifically, February 19, 2021, to November 19, 2021; November 19, 2021, to August 19, 2022; and March 28, 2022, to December 28, 2022; (2) failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent during same three nine-month periods following the adjudication of neglect, and (3) failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to A.W.'s welfare. See 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b), (m)(i),(ii) (West 2022).
¶ 15 In March 2023, the trial court conducted a hearing on the parental fitness portion of the termination proceedings. Respondent was present. The State asked the court to take judicial notice of the neglect petitions, the temporary custody orders, the adjudicatory orders, the dispositional orders, and the five permanency review orders. No party objected, and the court took judicial notice of the documents. The guardian ad litem (GAL) asked the court to take judicial notice of three documents from a Winnebago County order of protection case, No. 19-OP-2099, which are not relevant to respondent's appeal.
¶ 17 Kala Davis testified that she was a supervisor at Camelot Care Center (Camelot or the agency) and had supervised the cases of A.W. and his half-siblings. Camelot received M.P.'s case in June 2021 and the cases of A.W. and C.N in September 2022.
¶ 18 Davis testified about the purpose of a service plan:
She agreed when the State asked, "Do you maintain all of those service plans as part of your regular course of business?"
¶ 19 The State used Davis's testimony to introduce respondent's integrated assessments. After Davis agreed that the exhibits offered by the State were true and correct copies of the service plans dated May 2020, November 2020, May 2021, December 2021, and August 2022, the State moved for the plans' admission. Respondent objected, but the trial court admitted them, ruling that a "proper foundation had been laid."
¶ 20 Respondent did not participate in the original integrated assessment. The plan created after respondent had an integrated assessment in November 2022 recommended "[s]ubstance abuse, domestic violence, cooperation, visitation, [and] parenting" as services. Because the agency created this plan after the goal was no longer "return home," it would not include a recommendation for mental health services.
¶ 21 Respondent had some contact with the agency in December 2019. Davis testified the case notes showed that the first caseworker, Charo Garlitz, did an integrated assessment of respondent, but her notes did not contain any recommendations for him. Under cross-examination by respondent's counsel, Davis agreed that the lack of recommendations was inconsistent with agency procedure. Jaimi Kitchen, the caseworker who succeeded Garlitz, testified that she was not aware that respondent had completed an integrated assessment.
¶ 22 The first plan-that of May 2020-listed cooperation with the agency as a requirement for respondent and "substance abuse" as a service for him. On cross-examination, Davis said the plan also included domestic violence services.
¶ 23 Davis testified that, starting in 2020, respondent was out of contact with the agency for long periods:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial