Court Opinion

ID: 9383629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 20:04:08.511434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:46.895572
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (5th) 220709-U
            NOTICE
                                                                                       NOTICE
 Decision filed 03/30/23. The
                                                                            This order was filed under
 text of this decision may be               NO. 5-22-0709
                                                                            Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
 changed or corrected prior to
 the filing of a Petition for                                               not precedent except in the

 Rehearing or the disposition of
                                               IN THE                       limited circumstances allowed
 the same.                                                                  under Rule 23(e)(1).
                                   APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                               FIFTH DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

In re M.W., a Minor                       )     Appeal from the
                                          )     Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois,     )     Fayette County.
                                          )
       Petitioner-Appellee,               )
                                          )
v.                                        )     No. 22-JA-7
                                          )
John W.,                                  )     Honorable
                                          )     Douglas L. Jarman,
       Respondent-Appellant).             )     Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

         JUSTICE WELCH delivered the judgment of the court.
         Justices Cates and Barberis concurred in the judgment.

                                            ORDER

¶1       Held: The trial court’s finding that the minor child was neglected was not against the
               manifest weight of the evidence.

¶2       In January 2022, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship as to M.W. (born

January 14, 2022), the minor child of the respondent, John W., asserting that the child was

neglected. After an August 2022 adjudicatory hearing, the Fayette County circuit court found that

M.W. was neglected because her environment was injurious to her welfare. On October 6, 2022,

the court (1) found John W. unable for some reason other than financial circumstances alone to

care for, protect, train, or discipline M.W. and (2) placed M.W.’s custody and guardianship with

the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).

                                                  1
¶3     John W. appeals, contending that the circuit court’s finding that M.W. was neglected was

against the manifest weight of the evidence. Dawn P., who was the mother of M.W., was not part

of this appeal as she filed a separate appeal, which was docketed as 5-22-0690. The decision in

that appeal was filed on March 15, 2023. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶4                                    I. BACKGROUND

¶5     As a preliminary matter, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a)(5) (eff. July 1,

2018), except for good cause shown, this court is to issue a decision within 150 days after the filing

of the notice of appeal. Accordingly, Rule 311(a)(5) requires the decision in this case to be filed

on or before March 27, 2023. In order to give this case the attention it deserves, this court finds it

necessary to file this disposition past the due date, and we find good cause to issue our decision

outside the 150-day timeframe.

¶6     On January 18, 2022, the State filed a petition alleging that M.W. was neglected pursuant

to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)), as

M.W.’s environment was injurious to her welfare. Specifically, the petition asserted that, while

Dawn P. was in the hospital after giving birth to M.W., it was discovered that she had six other

children who had been removed from her care; four of the children were removed from her care

for physical abuse (from 2005 through 2010), and two of the children were removed for neglect

(2012 and 2018). John W. was not the father of these children. Also, Dawn P. had been indicated

for sexual molestation of one of her children in 2007 when the minor daughter was five years old.

The petition alleged that Dawn P. had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, anxiety, and

depression; she completed no mental health treatment; she was not on any medication; and she had

no services in place. The petition also alleged that, during this pregnancy, she did not seek any

                                                  2
prenatal care; both parents admitted that they had no items to care for M.W. upon discharge; and

Dawn P. tested positive for marijuana but denied other drug use.

¶7     That same day, DCFS filed a shelter care hearing report, in which it was reported that, in

2005, Dawn P. was admitted into the hospital for a mental health breakdown. She was being

treated for bipolar disorder, but she signed herself out of treatment against her doctor’s

recommendation. In 2007, she was indicated for sexual molestation of one of her children after

the child reported that she had been touched “inside [her] underpants” by both of her parents.

Although Dawn P. had completed a sex offender assessment, she never completed the treatment

because she felt it was not needed.

¶8     On February 18, 2022, DCFS filed a family service plan, which indicated that previous

service plans were unsatisfactory toward reunification; Dawn P. had a history of mental illness and

reported being diagnosed with anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, borderline

personality disorder, and bipolar disorder; and she reported that she was not taking any medication

for her mental health issues. The plan also indicated that both parents reported that they had no

supplies for M.W., other than onesies, blankets, and bottles; they did not have a crib or a car seat

to take M.W. home; and they did not understand how Dawn P.’s past behaviors and previous

history impacted their ability to safely care for a child.

¶9     On March 24, 2022, DCFS filed an integrated assessment, which indicated that Dawn P.

had an open family case with DCFS from December 2012 until November 2016 that related to her

previous substance abuse issues and untreated mental health issues. She also had an open family

case with DCFS from September 2005 until July 2010 due to her untreated mental health issues.

Dawn P. could not remember how many times she had been previously hospitalized for her mental

health issues; she believed her first hospitalization occurred when she was 17 years old. Although

                                                   3
she had a long history of substance abuse issues and mental health difficulties, she had not received

consistent treatment. There was no information to indicate that she participated in sex offender

treatment. She had previous convictions for two counts of burglary and one count for “dangerous

drugs.” Her last arrest was in September 2020 for disorderly conduct. The assessment also

indicated that she did not receive prenatal care during her pregnancy with M.W. and that M.W.

was born with exposure to marijuana. However, M.W. was born at 40 weeks; weighed nine

pounds, six ounces; and was in good medical health.

¶ 10   On July 20, 2022, the State filed an amended petition for adjudication of wardship, which

reiterated the allegations against Dawn P. but also asserted that John W. had been previously

convicted of two counts of assault and one count of burglary in Whiteside County. There had also

been an order of protection entered against John W. in which his mother was the protected party

because he had been verbally aggressive with her and attempted to intimidate her. The petition

also alleged that John W. had made threats of harm to the child welfare personnel and currently all

contact with him occurred in public settings for safety reasons.

¶ 11   On May 27, 2022, DCFS filed a pre-adjudication report, which indicated that, during a

February 16, 2022, visit, John W. made several indirect threats to the assigned caseworker.

According to the report, John W. was agitated because he did not understand why M.W. could not

return home, and he threatened that, “if [he] had to, [he] would put [the caseworker] up against the

wall and have three guys beat [the caseworker] and do what [he] had to do.” He also said that he

would “do anything for [his] daughter” and referenced being “stabbed in the streets several times,”

“calling a meeting of his people,” and being in and out of prison for the past 12 years. The report

also indicated that John W. was a previous member of a criminal gang. Based on this incident, it

was decided that all future parent/caseworker visits would be held in a public place.

                                                 4
¶ 12   On August 25, 2022, the trial court held an adjudicatory hearing. At the hearing, Noelle

Lamacchia, a DCFS investigator, testified that she became involved in this case in January 2022

when she was assigned to do a home safety check for the family and determine what items they

had for the baby. She met with Dawn P. and John W. at the home, and they showed her some

clothing that they had for the child. John W. indicated that they had not purchased a bed or other

items yet because he was waiting to get paid. Also, Dawn P. did not have any prenatal care while

pregnant. Lamacchia acknowledged that there were no safety concerns with the residence. At the

time of the home visit, M.W. was already in protective custody. Lamacchia noted that there was

concern about the parents coming to the hospital with no car seat. However, she acknowledged

that they did not own a vehicle. Lamacchia indicated that Dawn P. denied any history of mental

health issues, and Lamacchia was not aware of Dawn P. participating in any mental health

treatment.

¶ 13   Avery Liss, a DCFS caseworker, testified that she became involved in the case

approximately one week after M.W. was born. Liss visited with both parents to discuss Dawn P.’s

past DCFS involvement, the reasons why M.W. was taken into protective custody, and

transitioning to placement. Liss explained that Dawn P. had four children taken into care and that

case was from approximately 2005 through 2010; Dawn P. then had two more children who were

also taken into care, and those cases started in 2012 and ended in 2018.

¶ 14   Liss explained that Dawn P. was indicated by DCFS on a sexual molestation allegation in

2005 and had mental health issues for which treatment was recommended. The children were

removed from the home in 2012 because Dawn P. was having a mental health crisis where the

police had to get involved. Dawn P. had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and anxiety. Her

service plan recommendations included mental health services, counseling for her substance abuse

                                                5
issues, domestic violence services, and random drug screens. In those previous DCFS cases, she

had made some progress with some services, but she did not fully complete any of her services.

Although she completed a mental health assessment, she did not follow through with the

recommended counseling. The cases were closed by adoption, and none of the children were

returned home. Liss did not believe that Dawn P. was taking any medication for her mental health

issues.

¶ 15      Liss acknowledged that Dawn P. completed a psychosexual evaluation in 2008, and,

although the evaluation concluded that Dawn P. needed further services, she was not high risk for

reoffending. Dawn P. had not given Liss any information indicating that she had completed these

services, and the DCFS notes in the case file indicated that she never followed up for any additional

services based on that recommendation. Also, even though Dawn P. had previous issues with

methamphetamine use, there had been no indication in the current case that methamphetamine use

was an issue.

¶ 16      Liss testified that John W. had no prior involvement with DCFS. However, he had criminal

charges pending in Fayette County, and he had an extensive criminal history. Liss had only been

to the residence on three occasions, but there had been an incident during one of the visits where

John W. threatened Liss. During that incident, John W. was very agitated that M.W. was taken

into care, was telling Liss about his history of being “stabbed in the streets,” showed Liss his gang

tattoos, and mentioned putting Liss against the wall and having his people “go at” Liss. When

Liss asked what he meant by “his people,” he gave odd answers, and he kept referring to being

“stabbed in the streets” and doing anything for his daughter. Liss took John W.’s threats seriously

and was aware that John W. had previous criminal charges for violence; he had convictions for

                                                 6
armed habitual criminal, aggravated battery, and burglary. John W. also had an order of protection

entered against him.

¶ 17   Liss further testified that, after M.W. was taken into care, there were service plans created

for Dawn P. and John W. However, neither one was participating in any services, and both had

refused to cooperate with DCFS.

¶ 18   Dawn P. testified that she was 43 years old and resided in an apartment in Vandalia with

John W. She explained that she attempted to get prenatal care but could not afford it; the providers

did not take the insurance that she had at the time because the insurance company was not paying

its bills. However, she did take vitamins every day, and M.W. was born healthy. Her other six

children were also born healthy. At the time that M.W. was born, they had the basic essentials for

her, such as bottles and diapers. They also had other items, such as a playpen, highchairs, and

strollers; those items were in storage in Sterling, Illinois, because they had just moved into the

apartment. They had a car seat that they brought home from the hospital. She claimed that she

had a bag packed with some items to take to the hospital, but she was surprised to go into labor at

that time, and she did not bring the bag with her to the hospital. However, she acknowledged that

she had been at the health department the day before and was told that she was one day overdue.

¶ 19   Dawn P. acknowledged that she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, depression, and

anxiety. She has had a therapist at Whiteside County Health Department in Rock Falls, Illinois,

since approximately 2016 or 2017, and she talked to that therapist when needed. It had been a few

months since she talked to the therapist. Prior to this, she received services for mental health

treatment and also had a private therapist. Although she was not court ordered to complete any

services, she continued to participate in services after her last DCFS case. She was not prescribed

                                                 7
any medication for her mental health issues. She used marijuana for medicinal purposes because

she had glaucoma and chronic sciatic pain.

¶ 20    Regarding the incident in 2012, Dawn P. explained that she had a nervous breakdown when

her sister had a double lung transplant. Her brother and his wife were supposed to come help her,

but they never showed, so she called the police on herself because she needed help. Although she

was hospitalized in December 2020 for five days, she claimed that she was wrongfully

hospitalized. She explained that her brother’s wife called the police and claimed that she was

suicidal. She had previously been prescribed medication for her anxiety, but the last time that she

took the medication was in April 2021. In 2021, she went to the Sterling Police Department

because she was having an anxiety attack, and they did a mental health evaluation. She was given

an anxiety pill as a result of that assessment, but they did not recommend that she take any other

medication for her mental health issues.

¶ 21    Dawn P. also completed substance abuse and domestic violence services and parenting

classes. She completed substance abuse services with Lutheran Social Services of Illinois from

2012 until 2018, and she also completed her community service hours there. She attended

alcoholics anonymous and narcotics anonymous, but she did not have any documentation verifying

this.   She completed a psychosexual evaluation in the previous DCFS case, but the

recommendations from that evaluation were services that she was already participating in. She

was in prison from January 2010 until February 24, 2012, for burglary, and she participated in

services while incarcerated. Her substance abuse issues were not with methamphetamine but

cocaine, and she had been sober from cocaine since January 2010. She explained that, in 2018,

she was rated unsatisfactory in her service plan tasks because DCFS did not have the records that

showed she had completed her services.

                                                8
¶ 22   Dawn P. explained that her parental rights were not terminated with regard to her other

children. Instead, she surrendered the children to her sister because she wanted them to have a

better life; she believed that it was best for the children because she was not in a good place

mentally at that time as she was in an abusive relationship. She signed the adoption paperwork in

2015 or 2016. Her sister had two of her children while the other four were with traditional foster

parents.

¶ 23   Lamacchia was recalled to the stand and denied that Dawn P. and John W. mentioned that

they had items for the baby in storage. She acknowledged that the hospital sent them home with

a car seat because they did not have one. However, they did not have a bed, diapers, or formula;

they just had a handful of clothing and some bottles.

¶ 24   After hearing the testimony and the arguments from counsel, the trial court found that the

State satisfied its burden of showing that the environment was injurious to M.W.’s welfare. In

making this decision, the court noted that Dawn P. was not clear on the treatment that she received,

but she said that she self-medicated rather than taking the medication that was recommended for

her mental illness. The court also noted that Dawn P. was not able to speculate how many times

she had been hospitalized for mental illness. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the court

found that the testimony concerning Dawn P.’s failure to complete her service plans in the previous

cases was credible. Although she claimed that she could not find prenatal care, she could not say

which providers she contacted or how many, she did not indicate that she attempted to get any

prenatal care in Whiteside County, and she was very clear that she was not ready for the child’s

birth as she was not expecting it.

                                                 9
¶ 25   That same day, the trial court entered a written adjudicatory order, which found that M.W.

was a neglected minor because she was in an environment that was injurious to her welfare and

that the neglect was inflicted by both Dawn P. and John W.

¶ 26   On September 20, 2022, DCFS filed a dispositional report, which indicated that, on July

26, 2022, John W. was arrested for unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon, aggravated

assault with use of a deadly weapon, and endangering the life or health of a child. According to

the police report, he was allegedly chasing after his neighbor with a knife while the neighbor was

carrying a child. He had been incarcerated since July 26, and the criminal proceedings were still

pending.

¶ 27   On October 6, 2022, the trial court entered a dispositional order, which found that Dawn

P. and John W. were unable to care for, protect, train, or discipline M.W.; appropriate services

aimed at family preservation and reunification had been unsuccessful; and it was in M.W.’s best

interests to remove her from her parents’ custody. Thus, the court placed custody of the minor

with DCFS. On October 26, 2022, John W. filed a notice to appeal the adjudicatory order.

¶ 28                                    II. ANALYSIS

¶ 29   The Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2020)) establishes

a two-step process for determining whether a child should be removed from his or her parents’

custody and made a ward of the court. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 13. First, the trial

court holds an adjudicatory hearing to determine whether the minor is abused, neglected, or

dependent. In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d 441, 462 (2004); 705 ILCS 405/2-21(1) (West 2020). If

the court determines that the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent, it holds a dispositional

hearing to determine whether it is in the best interests of the minor and the public for the minor to

                                                 10
become a ward of the court. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 13; 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2)

(West 2020).

¶ 30   Section 2-3(1)(b) of the Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)) defines a neglected

minor to include any minor under 18 years of age whose environment is injurious to his or her

welfare. Neglect based on an “injurious environment” is not readily susceptible to definition. In re

J.P., 331 Ill. App. 3d 220, 234 (2002). However, neglect has generally been described as the

failure to exercise the care that circumstances justly demand and encompasses willful and

unintentional disregard of parental duty. Id. at 235. Cases involving the adjudication of neglect

and wardship are sui generis, and each case must ultimately be decided on the basis of its own

particular facts. In re Edricka C., 276 Ill. App. 3d 18, 25 (1995).

¶ 31   In this case, the State’s allegations of neglect are based, in part, on anticipatory neglect

based on DCFS’s involvement and the removal of Dawn P.’s previous children from her care.

Under the Act, proof of the abuse, neglect, or dependency of one minor is admissible evidence on

the issue of abuse, neglect, or dependency of any other minor for whom respondent is responsible.

705 ILCS 405/2-18(3) (West 2020). Where the allegations of neglect are premised on a theory of

anticipatory neglect, the State is seeking to protect children who have a probability of being

subjected to neglect or abuse because they reside, or in the future may reside, with an individual

who has been found to have neglected or abused another child. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d)

210676, ¶ 20.

¶ 32   “Although Illinois courts recognize the theory of anticipatory neglect, there is no per se

rule that evidence of neglect of one child conclusively establishes neglect of another child.” Id.

Instead, neglect should be measured by the circumstances surrounding the siblings as well as the

care and the condition of the child in question. Id. Also, any presumption of neglect based on

                                                11
anticipatory neglect is not permanent as it weakens over time, and it can be rebutted by other

evidence. In re J.P., 331 Ill. App. 3d at 235.

¶ 33   The State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the child is

abused, neglected, or dependent. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 13. A preponderance of

the evidence is the amount of evidence that leads a trier of fact to find that the fact at issue is more

probable than not. In re J.P., 331 Ill. App. 3d at 234. A trial court’s determination of neglect

based on an injurious environment will not be reversed unless it is against the manifest weight of

the evidence. In re D.A., 2022 IL App (2d) 210676, ¶ 14. A finding is against the manifest weight

of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the determination is unreasonable,

arbitrary, or not based on the presented evidence. Id.

¶ 34   Here, John W. contends that the trial court’s adjudication of neglect was against the

manifest weight of the evidence where there was no evidence presented showing a nexus between

Dawn P.’s mental health and harm to M.W., there was no evidence presented as to Dawn P.’s

current mental health issues, the previous DCFS cases were old enough that the connection

between them and this case had weakened sufficiently to overcome any presumption of

anticipatory neglect, and the failure to obtain prenatal care and to obtain sufficient items for the

infant were not enough to show that the environment was injurious because they were due solely

to the parents’ financial circumstances. Also, he contends that the trial court’s written finding of

neglect was contrary to the court’s oral findings at the adjudicatory hearing.

¶ 35   Dawn P. was previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression. Due to

her mental illness, she had been hospitalized on more than one occasion with the latest occurring

in December 2020. Although she could not remember how many times she had been hospitalized,

she believed the first one occurred at age 17. Also, in April 2021, she was having a severe enough

                                                  12
anxiety attack that she went to the police department, had a mental health evaluation, and was

given medication. Although John W. contends that there was no nexus between Dawn P.’s mental

illness and a risk of harm to M.W., we note that she testified that she surrendered her parental

rights to her previous children to her sister because she was mentally broken, was not in a good

place, and believed that it was necessary for them to have a better life.

¶ 36   Also, the testimony offered at the adjudicatory hearing from the DCFS workers, which the

trial court found credible, indicated that Dawn P. had not completed her previous services with

regard to mental health. She acknowledged that she was self-medicating with medicinal marijuana

but was not taking any other prescription medication to address her mental health issues. She also

explained that she talked to a therapist when she felt it necessary but had not spoken to the therapist

in a few months. As for being prepared for M.W.’s birth, she acknowledged that she was not ready

for the child’s birth when she admitted that she was not expecting to go into labor, even though

she was full term.

¶ 37   Further, in adjudicating M.W. a neglected minor, the trial court took into consideration

Dawn P.’s previous DCFS cases, which ended in 2010 and 2018 with the children not being

returned to her care, and her failure to complete her service plan tasks in those cases. Although

we recognize her argument that sufficient time had passed to call into question the connection

between those cases and the court’s findings here, we note that the court’s finding of neglect did

not focus primarily on the prior cases and was instead a finding made based on the totality of the

circumstances. Dawn P. is still in a similar posture as she was in 2010 and 2018 in that the evidence

presented to the court showed that she has not completed mental health services, she is not taking

any prescribed medication for her mental illnesses (other than marijuana) and had not taken any

since April 2021, she had struggled with her mental health as recent as 2021, and neither parent

                                                  13
understood how Dawn P.’s previous history impacted her ability to safely care for a child. The

above evidence, without any credible evidence indicating that Dawn P. had her mental health

issues under control, is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that M.W. was neglected.

¶ 38    Moreover, John W. contends that the trial court’s written findings of neglect were contrary

to the court’s oral findings because, at the adjudicatory hearing, the court did not make any oral

findings with respect to his actions or his criminal history but still found that he had neglected

M.W. in its subsequent written order. He, thus, argues that, because the oral findings control, and

there were no oral findings that he neglected M.W., the conflict should be resolved by concluding

that the trial court did not find that he inflicted the neglect.

¶ 39    At the time of the adjudicatory hearing, John W. was in jail after being arrested for unlawful

use or possession of a weapon by a felon, aggravated assault with use of a deadly weapon, and

endangering the life or health of a child. The evidence presented specifically with regard to John

W. indicated that he had previous convictions for violent crimes and had threatened physical

violence against the caseworker assigned to this case. During the incident with the caseworker, he

referenced his previous gang affiliations and being stabbed on the streets. After hearing this

evidence, along with the other evidence about Dawn P.’s history with DCFS, her mental health

issues, and the parents not being prepared for the baby’s arrival, the court found that Dawn P. and

John W. had neglected M.W. Considering the totality of the evidence, we find that the trial court’s

finding of neglect based on an injurious environment was not against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

¶ 40    In making this decision, we note that John W. is correct that, when a trial court’s oral

pronouncement is in conflict with its written order, the oral pronouncement prevails. See In re

K.L.S-P., 383 Ill. App. 3d 287, 294 (2008). However, we find that there was no conflict here

                                                   14
between the oral and written findings where the court merely focused on Dawn P. when making

its oral findings.

¶ 41                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 42    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court of Fayette County’s order

adjudicating the minor as neglected.

¶ 43    Affirmed.

                                               15