Z.H. v. Hurtado (In re Re)
| Decision Date | 02 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-15-0797,4-15-0797 |
| Citation | 2016 IL App (4th) 150797 -U |
| Parties | In re: Z.H., a Minor, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. EMONYA HURTADO, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Champaign County
Honorable John R. Kennedy, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court's unfitness and best-interest findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 In October 2014, the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of respondent, Emonya Hurtado, as to her child, Z.H. (born October 7, 2013). In July 2015, the trial court found respondent unfit. Following an August 2015 hearing, the court determined it was in Z.H.'s best interest to terminate respondent's parental rights.
¶ 3 Respondent appeals, asserting the trial court erred in finding her unfit and determining it was in Z.H.'s best interest to terminate her parental rights. Respondent father, Victor Hurtado, is not subject to this appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 5 A. Initial Proceedings ¶ 6 In December 2013, the State filed a petition for adjudication of neglect and shelter care, alleging Z.H. was subjected to an injurious environment pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2012)) in that (1) he was exposed to domestic violence (count I), (2) the environment placed him at risk of physical harm (count II), and (3) respondent failed to correct the conditions that resulted in other children being taken into care (counts III and IV). These charges stemmed from a December 2013 incident during which respondent threatened her 15-year-old son, E.D., with a bottle, which resulted in respondent engaging in a physical altercation with respondent father. During the altercation, respondent cut respondent father with a knife. Respondents had ongoing domestic-violence issues, with a record of seven other domestic-violence-related reports since April 2012.
¶ 7 In January 2014, the parties stipulated to count I of the petition. Following a February 2014 dispositional hearing, the trial court (1) found respondent was unfit and unable to care for Z.H., (2) made Z.H. a ward of the court, and (3) appointed the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) as the guardian of Z.H.
¶ 9 On October 29, 2014, the State filed a motion seeking a finding of unfitness and termination of parental rights. The motion alleged respondent failed to (1) make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of Z.H. (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i) (West 2012)); (2) make reasonable progress toward the return of Z.H. within the initial nine-month period following the adjudication of abuse or neglect (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(iii) (West 2012)); and (3) maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of Z.H. (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 2012)). In March 2015, during the pendency of the fitness proceedings, the State filed an amended motion seeking afinding of unfitness and termination of parental rights, adding an allegation that respondent failed to make reasonable progress toward the return home of Z.H. during any nine-month period after the end of the initial nine-month period following the adjudication of abuse or neglect (750 ILCS 50/D(m)(ii) (West 2012)). Specifically, the State alleged respondent failed to make reasonable progress from September 20, 2014, through March 31, 2015.
¶ 11 In January 2015, respondent's fitness hearing commenced, spanning numerous nonconsecutive days between January and July 2015. During the hearing, the parties presented the following evidence.
¶ 13 Kelly Beisser, an intact-family caseworker for the Center for Youth and Family Services (CYFS), testified she began working with the family in September 2013 following a hotline call. Although the allegations were later deemed unfounded, respondent agreed to continue with an intact-family plan. Respondent denied any ongoing domestic violence within the home, so Beisser focused on ensuring respondent was receiving appropriate prenatal and postnatal care during her pregnancy with Z.H.
¶ 14 In December 2013, Beisser received a hotline call regarding domestic violence in the home. As a result of that call, DCFS took protective custody of the children and the State initiated the present case. Beisser continued her involvement in the case for approximately 30 days, during which time she recommended counseling services and domestic-violence classes for respondent. Respondent continued to reside with respondent father.
¶ 15 b. Karie Kaufman¶ 16 Karie Kaufman, a caseworker at CYFS, testified she assumed case-management duties following the February 2014 dispositional hearing. At the time, respondents continued to reside together. Kaufman made several referrals for respondent, including (1) individual counseling, (2) parenting classes, (3) domestic-violence classes, and (4) a psychological examination. Respondent successfully completed her parenting classes in June 2014 and her domestic-violence classes in October 2014. She was also engaged in individual counseling after self-referring for treatment at Community Elements. Respondent obtained the psychological evaluation as ordered. Additionally, of her own volition, respondent attended various programs through Family Advocacy in Champaign County, which she successfully completed in March 2015. Respondent was also required to submit to random drug drops, all of which were negative. According to Kaufman, respondent missed three drops in June 2014, one drop in July 2014, two drops in September 2014, one drop in October 2014, and one drop in November 2014.
¶ 17 In April 2014, following a report of a domestic-violence incident between respondents, respondent father moved out of the family home. The two maintained their relationship, however. In June 2014, respondent reported respondent father had again engaged in domestic violence and she thereafter made plans to file for divorce. When respondent reported the June 2014 domestic-violence incident, Kaufman observed on respondent visible signs of abuse. Despite respondent's intention to file for divorce, in October 2014, respondent withdrew her filings and respondent father moved back in with her. They resided together until December 2014, when respondent reported yet another domestic-violence incident. At that time, respondent father was arrested and remained incarcerated until March 2015. Respondent father was released after respondent signed an affidavit exonerating him and refusing to press charges.
¶ 18 Kaufman reported respondent was employed for approximately one month in August 2014. Respondent's visits with the children were consistent and raised no concerns. She brought a backpack with supplies and was very attentive toward Z.H. However, toward the end of October 2014, CYFS briefly suspended visitation after respondent's counselor, Leah Hamilton, reported respondent made a threat against CYFS caseworkers. Specifically, respondent threatened to shoot six individuals, one for each of the children taken from her.
¶ 19 In December 2014, Kaufman arranged a mediation with respondent regarding the threat and the impact that threat had on respondent's visitation. According to Kaufman, respondent stated that if shooting caseworkers had been her intent, she would have already done it. Respondent did not deny making the threat. As a result of the mediation, respondent was granted supervised monthly visitation with Z.H. at the courthouse. After that time, respondent stopped participating in drug drops. However, she called her caseworker weekly with updates as required.
¶ 20 c. William Kohen
¶ 21 William Kohen, a psychologist, testified he received a referral to evaluate respondent. He had previously evaluated her in 2007. In evaluating respondent, Kohen noticed she had a tendency to minimize the issues she faced. As a result, respondent provided inconsistent information regarding her mental health, thus making it difficult for Kohen to recommend treatment. Intelligence testing reflected respondent had borderline intelligence. Her reading was at an elementary-school level.
¶ 22 Respondent's tests reflected an appropriate parenting attitude. She had a compulsive attitude, was morally oriented, and wanted structure. At the same time, some of her answers reflected depressive feelings. She admitted to feeling depressed over the present case.
¶ 23 Following the psychological testing, Kohen diagnosed respondent with bipolar disorder, alcohol abuse, and cannabis abuse, all in remission. She also had borderline intellectual functioning, a reading disorder, and a possible math disorder. Kohen recommended she continue individual counseling and suggested respondent undergo a psychiatric examination to determine whether she needed medication. At the time, Kohen was aware respondent had her parental rights terminated as to several other children. He determined her prognosis was questionable, given that she had already lost her parental rights as to other children, had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and had ongoing domestic-violence issues. If she addressed those issues, her prognosis would be more favorable toward her becoming a good parent.
¶ 24 d. Debbie Nelson
¶ 25 Debbie Nelson, the director of services for Cognition Works, testified she received a referral for respondent to engage in the IMPACT and CHANGE programs to address respondent's issues with domestic violence. Respondent successfully...
To continue reading
Request your trial