Court Opinion

ID: 9896539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-13 17:07:18.061555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:07.010346
License: Public Domain

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).

                                         2023 IL App (3d) 230326-U

                                Order filed November 13, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                    IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                                THIRD DISTRICT

                                                     2023

      In re K.B.,                            )     Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                             )     of the 21st Judicial Circuit,
             a Minor                         )     Kankakee County, Illinois,
                                             )
      (The People of the State of Illinois,  )
                                             )
             Petitioner-Appellee,            )     Appeal No. 3-23-0326
                                             )     Circuit No. 18-JA-30
             v.                              )
                                             )
      Cortez B.,                             )     Honorable
                                             )     JoAnn Imani Drew,
             Respondent-Appellant).          )     Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            PRESIDING JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justices Peterson and Davenport concurred in the judgment.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                  ORDER

¶1          Held: The circuit court did not err when it determined that (1) the respondent was unfit to
                  parent K.B. and (2) K.B.’s best interest favored terminating the respondent’s
                  parental rights.

¶2          The circuit court found the respondent, Cortez B., unfit to parent his child, K.B. (born July

     2007). Following a best interest hearing, the court entered an order terminating the respondent’s

     parental rights. The respondent appeals.
¶3                                                 I. FACTS

¶4          In September 2018, the State filed a petition alleging 11-year-old K.B was neglected

     because her environment was injurious to her welfare. The petition stated K.B.’s younger brother

     was born prematurely with a controlled substance in his system and K.B. had been left alone at the

     hospital. Both of K.B.’s parents were named as respondents, however, only her father, the

     respondent, is a party to this appeal. At the shelter care hearing, the court found that probable cause

     for the petition existed and there was an immediate and urgent necessity to remove K.B. from the

     home. The court awarded temporary custody to the Department of Children and Family Services.

¶5          In November 2018, the court entered an adjudicatory order, wherein it found that K.B. was

     abused or neglected in that she was in an environment injurious to her welfare (705 ILCS 405/2-

     3(1)(b) (West 2018)). A report filed by the Lutheran Child and Family Services (LCFS) noted that

     K.B.’s mother, prior to her discharge from the hospital after giving birth to K.B.’s brother, left the

     hospital to obtain drugs and left K.B. unattended for several hours without arranging for proper

     care or money for food. Regarding the respondent, an April 2018 investigation commenced when

     K.B. reported she witnessed domestic violence between her father and his paramour, and she was

     afraid to return to his care. The respondent was incarcerated, and K.B. went to live with her mother.

     The respondent was referred for random drug drops and an individual assessment. Visitation was

     recommended to be supervised one hour per week.

¶6          In December 2018, the court entered a dispositional order wherein it found the respondent

     unable and unwilling due to the indicated finding of neglect from 2018 where K.B. witnessed

     domestic violence. Further, the respondent needed to participate in the individual assessment and

     complete services. The court adjudicated K.B. as neglected, made her a ward of the court, and set

     a permanency goal of return home within 12 months.

                                                       2
¶7          Various reports and testimony throughout this case provided the following facts. The

     respondent attended two visits with K.B. facilitated by a caseworker in November and December

     2018. The respondent completed one drug drop that was positive for cannabis. He failed to

     participate in services (which were recommended based on his history) despite the caseworker’s

     repeated contact. In June 2019, the respondent was incarcerated for domestic battery. In 2019 and

     2020, the court entered three permanency orders finding the respondent did not make reasonable

     progress or efforts with his service plan.

¶8          In April and May 2021, while incarcerated, the respondent called the caseworker and asked

     about visits with K.B. The caseworker approached K.B. with the request, and K.B. stated that she

     was not sure she wanted that yet. K.B. had mental health struggles. At that time, in-person visits

     were not allowed per COVID-19 restrictions, but phone visits were allowed. K.B. was “sort of”

     open to phone visits, but the caseworker was never able to confirm if K.B. was on the call list and

     who would be supervising the contact. The respondent did not have phone contact with K.B. and

     only saw her in court. At court appearances, he would ask about K.B. and to see her. However,

     while incarcerated, he never attempted to send K.B. letters or cards for special occasions. At a

     permanency review hearing in September 2021, the court found that the respondent made

     reasonable efforts but not progress.

¶9          The respondent was released from jail on November 3, 2021. His first contact with the

     caseworker after his release was on November 17, 2021, at a court appearance. The caseworker

     spoke with him and provided him with her contact card. She informed the respondent that he

     needed to provide drug drops, enroll in a domestic violence program, and sign consents. The

     respondent followed up with the caseworker two days later and scheduled an appointment for

     December 1, 2021, to complete the integrated assessment, start services, and talk about visitation

                                                     3
       (K.B. told the caseworker she was ready to start phone calls with the respondent). The respondent

       failed to attend the December 1, 2021, appointment. On December 10, 2021, the respondent

       informed the caseworker that he missed the appointment because he had to work and his phone

       had been shut off. The appointment was rescheduled for December 13, 2021, and the respondent

       again failed to attend. After repeated failed contact, in February 2022, the caseworker discovered

       the respondent’s phone was disconnected. The caseworker sent the respondent a letter by mail.

       The caseworker then had contact with the respondent at a permanency review hearing in April

       2022, where the court found the respondent failed to make reasonable efforts or progress.

¶ 10          A new caseworker was assigned in April 2022 and a new service plan was implemented,

       which identified the services he needed to participate in and complete. The respondent did not

       comply with the service plan except for the item requiring he refrain from any incidents of

       domestic battery. The respondent would ask about K.B. while at court, however, he never followed

       up with regards to her welfare or to schedule visitation. In August 2022, K.B. began conversations

       with the respondent and then decided she no longer wanted to continue to speak with him. Since

       K.B. refused visits and contact, no visits were arranged. Following a clinical review meeting, it

       was decided that K.B. would not be forced to visit with the respondent.

¶ 11          In April 2022, the State filed a motion to terminate the respondent’s parental rights on two

       bases: (1) he failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to

       K.B.’s welfare; and (2) he failed to make reasonable progress toward K.B.’s return to his home

       during the nine-month period of June 30, 2021, to March 31, 2022. Following a hearing, the court

       found the respondent unfit. The matter proceeded to a best interest hearing where the evidence

       showed K.B. was a sophomore in high school and was on her seventh foster placement. Her past

       placements showed unacceptable behavior and mental health struggles. K.B.’s current foster

                                                       4
       family stated they were committed to K.B. The foster mother was K.B.’s former middle school

       teacher, and K.B. referred to her foster parents as “mom” and “dad.” K.B. had been with this

       placement for four months and was happy.

¶ 12           The foster family stated K.B. had no behavioral issues and they were committed to K.B.

       for permanency. K.B. began opening up to the family about her past trauma, needs, and desire to

       stay in the home. K.B. received high grades and was thinking about college and her future. She

       also bonded with the foster family, friends at school, and played basketball. The caseworker

       provided the respondent had still not completed the integrated assessment or services. The

       guardian ad litem opined it was in K.B.’s best interest to terminate the respondent’s parental rights

       so that K.B. could have some permanency. The court found it was in K.B.’s best interest to

       terminate the respondent’s parental rights on both grounds. The respondent appeals.

¶ 13                                               II. ANALYSIS

¶ 14           On appeal, the respondent argues that the circuit court’s finding that he was unfit and

       decision to terminate his parental rights were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 15           The involuntary termination of parental rights is a two-step process. First, the State must

       prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is “unfit” as defined in section 1(D) of the

       Adoption Act. In re Tiffany M., 353 Ill. App. 3d 883, 889 (2004). If the court finds the parent

       “unfit” within the meaning of section 1(D) of the Adoption Act, it must then determine whether

       the child’s best interest favors terminating parental rights. In re J.L., 236 Ill. 2d 329, 337-38 (2010).

¶ 16                                                  A. Fitness

¶ 17           A circuit court’s fitness determination will only be reversed if its findings of fact were

       against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 208 (2001). A finding is

       against the manifest weight of the evidence when an opposite conclusion is clearly evident. In re

                                                          5
       A.W., 231 Ill. 2d 92, 102 (2008). We will not overturn a court’s findings merely because we would

       have reached a different result. In re K.B., 2012 IL App (3d) 110655, ¶ 23.

¶ 18          In this case, the court found that the respondent was unfit on two grounds: (1) he failed to

       maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to K.B.’s welfare (750 ILCS

       50/1(D)(b) (West 2022)); and (2) he failed to make reasonable progress toward K.B.’s return to

       his home during the nine-month period of June 30, 2021, to March 31, 2022 (750 ILCS

       50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022)). However, the respondent only challenges the latter ground on the

       sole basis that he was just released from prison and the time period was not sufficient for him to

       engage in or complete services. The State was only required to prove one statutory ground for

       unfitness. In re Tr. A., 2020 IL App (2d) 200225, ¶ 43. So, even if the court’s finding of unfitness

       was erroneous as to the nine-month period, it is without a difference as the court’s other basis for

       finding the respondent unfit still stands unchallenged.

¶ 19          Moreover, the respondent fails to cite any authority for his argument that his incarceration

       for around four months during the nine-month period somehow excuses his lack of progress. In re

       A.M., 358 Ill. App. 3d 247, 251 (2005) (“Bare contentions advanced without citation to relevant

       authority do not merit consideration on appeal.”). Accordingly, the court’s finding of unfitness

       was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 20                                             B. Best Interest

¶ 21          Once the court finds the parents unfit, all further considerations must yield to the child’s

       best interest. In re D.M, 298 Ill. App. 3d 574, 581 (1998). Here, the court determined that K.B.’s

       best interest favored terminating the respondent’s parental rights. A reviewing court reviews a best

       interest determination under the manifest weight of the evidence standard. In re J.B., 2019 IL App

       (4th) 190537, ¶ 33. In making a best interest determination, the court must consider the following

                                                        6
       factors in the context of the child’s age and developmental needs: the child’s physical safety and

       welfare; development of the child’s identity; the child’s background; the child’s attachments; the

       child’s wishes and long-term goals; the child’s community ties; the child’s needs for permanence;

       the uniqueness of every family and child; the risks inherent to substitute care; and the preferences

       of the people available to care for the child. 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2022).

¶ 22          The respondent’s only argument on this issue is that there remains a bond between him and

       K.B. Again, he has failed to cite any authority suggesting that a bond can outweigh every other

       consideration or point to any evidence suggesting that such a bond exists. Regardless, our review

       of the record demonstrates that it was in K.B.’s best interest to terminate the respondent’s parental

       rights based on many factors, including, but not limited to: (1) K.B.’s physical safety and welfare

       were being met by her foster family; (2) K.B. has opened up to her foster family about past trauma

       and her needs; (3) K.B. began advocating for herself and looking at her future; (4) K.B.’s

       background and ties with the respondent were not positive compared to her relationship with her

       foster mother with whom she had a positive relationship; (5) K.B. displayed a sense of attachment

       with her foster family by referring to her foster parents as “mom” and “dad”; (6) K.B. was happy

       in the home and did not want to move; (7) K.B.’s foster parents were committed to K.B. with the

       goal of adoption; (8) K.B. made friends at school, where she earned high grades, and played

       basketball; and (9) K.B.’s foster family met her need for stability.

¶ 23          Thus, the court’s decision to terminate the respondent’s parental rights was not against the

       manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 24                                           III. CONCLUSION

¶ 25          The judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County is affirmed.

¶ 26          Affirmed.

                                                        7