People v. Shane R. (In re S.R.)
| Decision Date | 05 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-20-0571 cons.,NO. 4-20-0569,4-20-0569,4-20-0571 cons. |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (4th) 200569 -U |
| Parties | In re S.R., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Shane R., Respondent-Appellant). In re T.R., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Shane R., 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 the Circuit Court of Vermilion County
¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not err in finding respondent unfit to parent his minor children or in terminating respondent's parental rights.
¶ 2 On September 17, 2020, the trial court found respondent, Shane R., unfit to parent his minor children, S.R. (born November 25, 2015) and T.R. (born January 19, 2017). On October 30, 2020, the court terminated respondent's parental rights. Respondent appeals, arguing the trial court erred both in finding that he was an unfit person and in finding termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of S.R. and T.R. We affirm.
¶ 4 On January 25, 2019, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging S.R. and T.R. were neglected, as that term is defined under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/2-3 (West 2018)), because their environment was injurious to their welfare as a result of their mother's substance abuse (id. § 2-3(1)(b)) and because their mother failed to provide them proper and necessary support, education, and other remedial care required for their welfare (id. § 2-3(1)(a)). The State additionally alleged it was in the best interests of the minors to be made wards of the court. A few days later, the trial court conducted a shelter care hearing and entered an order granting the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) temporary custody of the minors. Respondent was not present during the shelter care hearing.
¶ 5 On March 5, 2019, Lutheran Social Services of Illinois (LSSI), an agency operating under contract with DCFS, filed a family service plan. Under the plan, respondent was required to, among other things, stay in contact with the minors' caseworker and complete an integrated assessment, a substance abuse assessment, a parenting assessment, and a mental health evaluation.
¶ 6 In August 2019, respondent appeared before the trial court in this matter in the custody of the Vermilion County sheriff. During this proceeding, the court informed respondent of the allegations contained in the State's petition for adjudication of wardship, admonished him of his rights during termination proceedings, and appointed counsel to represent him.
¶ 7 In September 2019, the trial court conducted an adjudicatory hearing. Respondent did not appear at this proceeding, but his counsel was present. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found S.R. and T.R. were neglected on both grounds alleged by the State. Subsequently,the court conducted a dispositional hearing, which respondent also failed to attend. At the end of the dispositional hearing, the court entered an order finding respondent unfit, unable, and unwilling to parent S.R. and T.R., making the minors wards of the court, and granting custody and guardianship of the minors to DCFS. Additionally, the court ordered that respondent cooperate with DCFS and comply with the terms of the LSSI service plan.
¶ 8 On February 21, 2020, the State filed a petition to terminate respondent's parental rights. (We note the State also sought to terminate the parental rights of S.R. and T.R.'s mother and that, ultimately, her parental rights were terminated; however, she is not a party to this appeal, and we discuss the facts only as they relate to respondent.) In its petition, the State alleged respondent was an unfit parent in that he failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the minors' welfare (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2018)). The State further alleged it was in the best interests of S.R. and T.R. that respondent's parental rights be terminated.
¶ 9 On September 17, 2020, the trial court conducted a fitness hearing, which respondent attended. During the hearing, the court took judicial notice that respondent had been incarcerated in the Vermilion County jail from August 5, 2019, until August 30, 2019, was incarcerated again on December 27, 2019, and remained incarcerated on the date of the fitness hearing. The State presented testimony from Tori Zook, S.R. and T.R.'s caseworker through LSSI. Zook testified her first communication with respondent had been in August 2019 when he appeared in court. At that time, respondent informed Zook he had been unaware until that day that S.R. and T.R. were in foster care. Also during that communication, Zook provided respondent her contact information and instructed him to notify her when he was released from jail, but respondent failed to do so. Zook testified she was unable to communicate with respondent after he was releasedbecause she did not have any contact information for him. Zook's next communication with respondent was in January 2020 when she met with him in the Vermilion County jail and provided him materials to complete an integrated assessment. Although, in July 2020, respondent told Zook he had completed the integrated assessment, he never provided it to Zook, and due to restrictions implemented at the Vermilion County jail as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, Zook was unable to pick up the assessment from him. Zook additionally testified that under respondent's service plan, he was required to complete a substance abuse assessment, a parenting assessment, and a mental health evaluation. Although Zook acknowledged the services respondent was required to complete were not available while he was in jail, she also testified respondent could have completed some of the services between August and December 2019 when he was not incarcerated. According to Zook, since DCFS had been granted custody of the minors in January 2019, respondent had not had a visit with S.R. or T.R. However, he had spoken with them on the phone once while the minors were at the LSSI office and had sent them one letter. Zook further testified that "the only time [respondent had] participated in this case [was] while [he was] in jail" and that respondent's participation was "limited to just coming to court [and] talking to [her]."
¶ 10 Respondent testified on his own behalf. According to respondent, he first learned DCFS had removed S.R. and T.R. from their mother's custody at the August 2019 court proceeding. Between January 2019 and August 2019, he would "video chat" with S.R. and T.R. whenever their mother would call him with the children. Respondent testified that while he was incarcerated, he was unable to complete any of the recommended services, although he did complete the integrated assessment packet Zook had provided. Respondent also testified that, during his incarceration, he was not provided any opportunities for visits with S.R. or T.R.,although he had one phone call with them and had written them a letter. Additionally, respondent testified no one from DCFS contacted him after he was released from jail and he was unable to reach out to them because the sheriff had taken away the slip of paper on which Zook had written her contact information. On cross-examination, respondent acknowledged "the only time [he had] ever show[ed] up for court in this case [was] when [he was] in custody."
¶ 11 At the end of the fitness hearing, the trial court found respondent unfit, as alleged by the State.
¶ 12 On October 30, 2020, the trial court conducted a best interest hearing. During the hearing, the State again called Zook to testify. According to Zook, S.R. and T.R. were placed with their maternal grandmother and her husband. S.R. was placed in that home in August 2019, and T.R. was placed there in October 2019. Zook testified S.R. and T.R. had "bonded" with their grandparents and were "safe and loved" in their grandparents' home. Zook further testified the grandparents ensured S.R. and T.R. received "ongoing services," such as therapy, and were willing to adopt S.R. and T.R. Zook concluded the grandparents' home was "the best placement for both of the children." Additionally, Zook testified respondent still had not had any visits with S.R. and T.R. and had not communicated with the minors except for the phone call and the letter about which she testified during the fitness hearing.
¶ 13 Respondent again testified on his own behalf. According to respondent, he had never been offered visits with S.R. and T.R., had never been offered any services apart from the integrated assessment packet, and was never informed "what sorts of things were expected from [him] from DCFS." Respondent further testified that he would have participated in visits with S.R. and T.R. if any had been offered, his children were important to him, and he "love[d] them todeath." Respondent concluded he was willing to do "what [he could] to be able to be in [S.R. and T.R.'s] lives in whatever way [he could]."
¶ 14 At the end of the best interest hearing, the trial court found termination of respondent's parental rights was in the best interests of S.R. and T.R.
¶ 15 This appeal followed.
¶ 17 The Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2018)) "delineates a two-step process in seeking termination of parental rights involuntarily." In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337, 924 N.E.2d 961, 966 (2010). First, the court conducts a fitness hearing at which it must determine, by "clear and convincing evidence, that [the] parent is an unfit person as defined in Section 1 of the Adoption Act [(750 ILCS 50/1 (Wes...
To continue reading
Request your trial