People v. Ralph L. (In re Haley D.)

• Decision Date: 01 December 2011
• Docket Number: No. 110886.,110886.
• Citation: 355 Ill.Dec. 375,2011 IL 110886,959 N.E.2d 1108
• Parties: In re HALEY D. (The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Ralph L., Appellee).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

2011 IL 110886

355 Ill.Dec. 375

959 N.E.2d 1108

In re HALEY D. (The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant,

v.Ralph L., Appellee).

No. 110886.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 1, 2011.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Joseph E. Birkett, State's Attorney, of Wheaton (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Brett E. Legner, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, and Patrick Delfino, Lawrence M. Bauer and David A. Bernhard, of the Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, of Elgin, of counsel), for the People.

Michael V. Ohlman, Forrest L. Ingram and Philip Groben of Chicago, for appellee.

Robert F. Harris, Kass A. Plain and Christopher Williams, of the Office of the Cook County Public Guardian, of Chicago, for amicus curiae Cook County Public Guardian.

OPINION

Justice KARMEIER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

[355 Ill.Dec. 378] ¶ 1 The central issue in this case is whether the circuit court of Du Page County erred when it denied Ralph L.'s motion to set aside a finding that he had defaulted on a petition by the State to terminate his parental rights to his daughter, Haley D., and entered a default judgment terminating Ralph's parental rights over the child. The appellate court held that the proceedings did not comport with due process requirements because the State had made no attempt to serve Ralph with the termination petition and the court ruled against him on that petition despite the absence of proof that an attempt at service had been made. Condemning the entry of default judgment against Ralph as “unfair, unjust and unconscionable,” the appellate court reversed the circuit court's order denying Ralph's motion to set aside the default, vacated the default judgment, and remanded the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings. 403 Ill.App.3d 370, 342 Ill.Dec. 835, 933 N.E.2d 421. One justice dissented. We subsequently granted the State's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S.Ct. R. 315 (eff.Feb.26, 2010). We also allowed the Cook County public guardian to file a friend of the court brief supporting the State's position. See Ill. S.Ct. R. 345 (eff.Sept.20, 2010). We now affirm the appellate court's judgment, though for reasons different from those on which the appellate court relied.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Haley D. is the youngest of six children born to Ralph L. and Patricia D. ¹ At the time of her birth in April of 2007, Haley exhibited symptoms of drug withdrawal and was discovered to have been exposed to cocaine in utero. A drug test administered to her mother, Patricia D., confirmed the presence of cocaine in Patricia's system.

¶ 4 Because she was undergoing withdrawal, Haley was kept in the hospital for six days. When she was set to be released, the State took her into protective custody and placed her in a foster home. It also filed a petition in the circuit court of Du Page County pursuant to section 2–13 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/2–13 (West 2008)) alleging that she was a neglected minor and asking that she be made a ward of the court. The basis for the charge of neglect was that, at the time of her birth, her blood, urine or meconium contained a controlled substance (cocaine) which was not the result of medical treatment administered to her or her mother. See 705 ILCS 405/2–3(1)(c) (West 2008).

¶ 5 When it filed its petition, the State did not ask the court to terminate the parental rights of either Ralph or Patricia. Had termination of parental rights been its objective, the State would have been required to say so “clearly and obviously” in its prayer for relief. 705 ILCS 405/2–13(4) (West 2008). No such declaration was made. Instead, the State elected to make a general prayer for relief without specifying any proposed disposition following adjudication of wardship. See 705 ILCS 405/2–13(3) (West 2008).

¶ 6 Patricia and Ralph did not live together. Patricia was personally served with the petition. Abode service was made on Ralph by leaving the summons and a copy of the petition with his mother at the house they shared. There is no dispute that service on both Patricia and Ralph complied with the requirements of section 2–15 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/2–15 (West 2008)), which governed service of summons with respect to the State's petition.

¶ 7 Once service was accomplished and separate public defenders were appointed to represent Ralph and Patricia, the court held an adjudicatory hearing. Following that hearing, the court entered a finding that Haley was neglected within the meaning of section 2–3(1)(c) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2–3(1)(c) (West 2006)) as the State had alleged. The order containing the court's finding was filed July 31, 2007.²

¶ 8 A dispositional hearing was conducted by the court two weeks later, on August 14, 2007. See 705 ILCS 405/2–22 (West 2008). Based on the evidence presented at that hearing, the circuit court entered an order making Haley a ward of the court and setting as the permanency goal the return of Haley to her parents within 12 months. The court also approved a service plan formulated by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and scheduled a permanency hearing for February 12, 2008. That date was subsequently reset for February 19, 2008.

¶ 9 By the time of the February 19, 2008, hearing, Patricia's whereabouts were unknown and the court determined that she had not made substantial progress toward having Haley return home. Although reports submitted to the court indicated that Ralph had not been complying with the service plan which had been established for him and a recommendation had been made that the permanency goal be changed, the court rejected that recommendation. Based on the evidence presented to it, the court concluded that Ralph had been making substantial progress toward Haley's return home and continued to set as the permanency goal Haley's return home within 12 months.

¶ 10 An assessment prepared by DCFS in August of 2008 stated that Ralph's progress was “less than ideal” because he was tardy for or had cancelled visits with Haley, but also noted that he had participated in “parent coaching” throughout the previous quarter and made significant improvements. According to the assessment, Ralph's family was stable “due to good money management by [Ralph, who] has continued with the same employer for twelve years,” and the family home appeared “clean, safe and appropriate for the children living there.” Ralph was also described as “invested in the lives of his 5 oldest children and provides support and nuturance [ sic ] to them.”

¶ 11 A report prepared by the parenting coach to whom Ralph had been referred stated that during the period between June 16, 2008, and August 15, 2008, Ralph had attended 9 of 13 scheduled parent coaching sessions. The report stated that he “continues to be prepared and eager for the sessions to occur,” but occasionally arrives late. At the time the report was drafted, Ralph had not yet developed “a clear understanding of all the techniques that have been introduced to him,” and the report complained of inconsistencies with the coaching sessions. At the same time, however, the report noted that “[h]e has been very cooperative, open, willing to grow and try new techniques to become a better parent” and that “[r]ecently, since Haley and [he] have grown comfortable with one another, he has started working with this coach to further develop his skills by including the other children in the sessions.”

¶ 12 According to DCFS, there were only two areas in which Ralph's progress was deemed unsatisfactory. First, due to prior incidents involving Patricia, he was supposed to complete a domestic violence assessment and undergo a mental health assessment. Second, because of a history of drug-related problems in the household, he was also supposed to complete a substance abuse evaluation and submit to random drug tests. The reports show that he was not in compliance with those requirements. He had also been remiss in obtaining developmental evaluations from the local school district for two of his other children. Overall, however, DCFS reported that Ralph's progress was satisfactory and that the previously established outcome should be maintained.

¶ 13 The Evangelical Child & Family Agency (ECFA), which had become involved in the case under DCFS's auspices, also made a report around this time. In detailing the family's status and history, it noted that Ralph had filed for divorce from Patricia and that, according to Ralph, the divorce was now finalized. The report contained observations consistent with the other reports filed with the court, including the need for Ralph to comply with the random drug screening requirement in order to confirm that he was abstaining from substance abuse, as he claimed; the desirability of his obtaining a domestic violence assessment and participating in mental health counseling; and the need for him to improve his parenting skills and be more consistent in attending his scheduled visits with Haley. It did not, however, recommend a change in the permanency goal. It opined that return of Haley to the home within 12 months should remain the goal “in order to allow Ralph L[.] and/or Patricia L[.] adequate time to complete reunification services.”

¶ 14 The record is clear that, by the end of August 2008, Patricia had no involvement with Haley and was making no effort to comply with the permanency goal set by the court. Accordingly, in an interim order entered in September of 2008, the court found that Patricia was no longer making substantial progress toward Haley's return home. Notwithstanding the positive developments contained in the reports just described, the court made the same determination with respect to Ralph. It did not, however, alter the permanency goal, which remained for Haley to return home within 12 months.

¶ 15 The following month, the foster...