People v. Michelle C. (In re A.C.)
| Decision Date | 08 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-20-0511,NO. 4-20-0512 cons.,4-20-0511,4-20-0512 cons. |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (4th) 200511 -U |
| Parties | In re A.C., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Michelle C., Respondent-Appellant). In re L.C., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Michelle C., Respondent-Appellant). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
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 Circuit Court of Sangamon County
Honorable Karen S. Tharp, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court's fitness and best-interest findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 On September 11, 2020, the trial court terminated the parental rights of respondent, Michelle C., as to her children, A.C. (born December 27, 2011) and L.C. (born December 27, 2011). Respondent father, Jared C., is not a party to this appeal. On appeal, respondent argues the trial court's fitness and best-interest findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 4 A. Initial Proceedings
¶ 5 1. A.C.
¶ 6 In December 2018, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging A.C. was neglected where (1) the minor's environment was injurious to her welfare as evidenced by respondent's drug use (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2018)) and (2) the minor was not receiving the proper care and supervision necessary for her well-being in that respondent failed to make a proper care plan for the minor's supervision (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a) (West 2018)). Subsequently, the trial court placed A.C. in shelter care and granted the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) temporary custody and guardianship of A.C.
¶ 7 In March 2019, the trial court entered an adjudicatory order finding A.C. neglected after respondent stipulated to paragraph two of the petition for wardship: A.C. was not receiving the proper care and supervision necessary for her well-being in that respondent failed to make a proper care plan for A.C.'s supervision. The State withdrew paragraph one per the stipulation. In a May 2019 dispositional order, the trial court (1) found respondent unfit, (2) made A.C. a ward of the court, and (3) granted DCFS guardianship and custody.
¶ 8 2. L.C.
¶ 9 In December 2018, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging L.C. was neglected where (1) the minor's environment was injurious to her welfare as evidenced by respondent's drug use (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2018)) and (2) the minor was not receiving the proper care and supervision necessary for her well-being in that respondent failed to make a proper care plan for the minor's supervision (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a) (West 2018)).
Subsequently, the trial court placed L.C. in shelter care and granted DCFS temporary custody and guardianship of L.C.
¶ 10 In March 2019, the trial court entered an adjudicatory order finding L.C. neglected after respondent stipulated to paragraph two of the petition for wardship: L.C. was not receiving the proper care and supervision necessary for her well-being in that respondent failed to make a proper care plan for L.C.'s supervision. The State withdrew paragraph one per the stipulation. In a May 2019 dispositional order, the trial court (1) found respondent unfit, (2) made L.C. a ward of the court, and (3) granted DCFS guardianship and custody.
¶ 12 In January 2020, the State filed petitions to terminate respondent's parental rights. The petitions alleged respondent failed to (1) maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to A.C. and L.C. (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2018)); (2) make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis of removal (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2018)); and (3) make reasonable progress toward the return of A.C. and L.C. within nine months after an adjudication of neglect, specifically March 27, 2019, to December 27, 2019 (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2018)). In August 2020, the State filed amended petitions to terminate respondent's parental rights. The amended petitions alleged respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis of removal of A.C. and L.C. from her within nine months after an adjudication of neglect, specifically March 27, 2019, to December 27, 2019.
¶ 14 On September 11, 2020, the trial court conducted a bifurcated hearing on the petitions for termination of parental rights, first considering respondent's fitness.
¶ 15 Before the State called its first witness, respondent's attorney made a motion to continue the hearing, citing respondent's absence. Respondent's attorney informed the trial court respondent was not present at the prior court hearing where the court set the termination hearing date. Although counsel had been unable to reach respondent prior to the hearing date, the State notified respondent by publication. Eventually, on the morning of the termination hearing, respondent's attorney did reach respondent who said "she was at work and that she didn't know if she was going to be able to make it." After going back through the file, the court denied the motion finding respondent had "a history of not showing up for court." During the hearing, the parties presented the following relevant testimony.
¶ 17 Punam Deshmukh, a case worker at Lutheran Child and Family Services (LCFS), testified she served as the caseworker on respondent's case from December 2018 to late June or early July 2019. Deshmukh acknowledged A.C. and L.C. were removed from respondent due to allegations of neglect, specifically respondent "was never around to supervise them." Deshmukh created a service plan for respondent in January 2019. Respondent's service plan required substance-abuse treatment, domestic-violence and anger-management counseling, parenting classes, cooperation with the agency, stable housing and employment, mental-health services, and visitation with the children. Deshmukh made all the necessary referrals for respondent. Deshmukh testified she was not present for the first annual case review meeting on respondent's service plan.
¶ 18 Deshmukh testified respondent failed to cooperate with her substance-abuse services. Respondent only completed 3 out of 16 substance-abuse classes and provided only a third of the requested drug drops. Respondent failed to comply with her domestic-violence services where she never attended a domestic-violence counseling session. Deshmukh informed respondent she needed to go to Memorial Medical Center for a mental-health assessment. Deshmukh testified, "I think [respondent] went to her [mental-health] assessment, but I'm not sure what happened after that."
¶ 19 Respondent failed to maintain contact or provide her home address to Deshmukh. Due to a lack of attendance, respondent failed to complete parenting classes and was discharged from parenting classes in June 2019. While respondent indicated she was employed, she never provided Deshmukh proof of employment.
¶ 20 Deshmukh testified respondent's visitation schedule included weekly supervised visits with the children. Visitation occurred in public. Deshmukh supervised many of respondent's visits with the children. Respondent's participation in visitation was "very spotty." Respondent missed at least 50% of the visits. Deshmukh testified respondent missed visits because of "work, she wasn't feeling good, stuff like that." Respondent frequently cancelled visits at the last minute. Respondent also routinely failed to show up to rescheduled visits.
¶ 21 Throughout her visits respondent regularly discussed the case in front of the children despite repeated direction to not mention the case while visiting. In addition, respondent frequently talked on the telephone with friends during visits. Deshmukh provided that the overall interaction between respondent and the children was "okay." Respondent never sent cards, letters, or gifts to the children. Deshmukh testified the foster parents did not want respondent to have their address. Respondent provided food for the children at visits. Deshmukh testified she was never close to returning the children to respondent because respondent "wasn't cooperating with services."
¶ 22 b. Amber Parker ¶ 23 Amber Parker, a case worker at LCFS, testified she served as the caseworker on respondent's case from August 2019 to November 2019. In August 2019, when Parker entered the case, a service plan had been developed in January 2019. Six months later, in May 2019, another service plan went into effect. Parker testified respondent's service plan included "DCFS/LCFS parenting classes, visitation with her children, substance[-]abuse services, domestic[-]violence services/anger management and counseling services." Respondent's visitation schedule also provided respondent with supervised visitation with the children once a week. Parker made the necessary referrals for services.
¶ 24 Parker testified respondent "cooperated with five out of seven toxicology screenings, which were negative, but she only completed three out of 16 classes while I had the case, and she was told that if she did not continue the service, that she would be let go out of the service, basically." Respondent failed to complete domestic-violence services, mental-health services, or parenting classes. Parker testified, Parker stated "even though [respondent]...
To continue reading
Request your trial