Court Opinion

ID: 9874343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:04:41.102087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:36.272292
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (5th) 230286-U
            NOTICE
                                                                                      NOTICE
 Decision filed 09/26/23. The
                                                                           This order was filed under
 text of this decision may be               NO. 5-23-0286
                                                                           Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
 changed or corrected prior to
 the filing of a Peti ion 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 Z.B.D., a Minor                           )     Appeal from the
                                                )     Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois,           )     Champaign County.
                                                )
       Petitioner-Appellee,                     )
                                                )
v.                                              )     No. 22-JA-89
                                                )
Demetrius W.,                                   )     Honorable
                                                )     Brett M. Olmstead,
       Respondent-Appellant).                   )     Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

         JUSTICE McHANEY delivered the judgment of the court.
         Justices Welch and Vaughan concurred in the judgment.

                                             ORDER

¶1       Held: The circuit court reasonably required respondent to submit to DNA testing to prove
               he was the minor’s father, rejecting respondent’s unsupported assertions that the
               results might be misused in unrelated cases, and denied respondent’s requests to
               present cumulative or irrelevant evidence. As any argument to the contrary would
               lack merit, we grant respondent’s appointed appellate counsel leave to withdraw
               and affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

¶2       Respondent, Demetrius W., appeals the circuit court’s order requiring him to submit to

DNA testing to establish that he is the father of Z.B.D. His appointed appellate counsel concludes

that there is no reasonably meritorious argument that the court erred. Accordingly, he has filed a

motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel has

notified respondent of his motion and this court has provided him with ample opportunity to

                                                  1
respond. However, he has not done so. After considering the record on appeal and counsel’s

motion, we agree that this appeal presents no arguably meritorious issues. Thus, we grant counsel

leave to withdraw and affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

¶3                                   BACKGROUND

¶4     In September 2022, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship alleging that

Z.B.D. was abused and was in an injurious environment due to the abuse of his siblings. The

petition named Marcell D. as Z.B.D.’s legal father and respondent as his putative father. Tangula

B. is his mother.

¶5     At a shelter care hearing relating to Z.B.D. and two siblings, the circuit court found that

Tangula B. was residing with Aaron O. who “regularly beats her children *** causing injuries,”

and that she was aware of the abuse but did nothing to prevent it. Accordingly, the court placed

the three children in the temporary custody of the Department of Children and Family Services

(DCFS).

¶6     The court ordered respondent and Marcell D. to submit to DNA testing to discern which

was Z.B.D.’s father. In the ensuing months, the court denied numerous pro se motions by

respondent, including one for DNA testing.

¶7     At a subsequent adjudicatory hearing, the State filed a supplemental petition alleging that

Z.B.D. was neglected while with Tangula B. and Aaron O. because the environment exposed him

to excessive corporal punishment. Tangula B. stipulated to that allegation and respondent waived

his right to an adjudicatory hearing. Accordingly, the court found that the State had proved the

allegations. The State dismissed the original petition.

                                                 2
¶8     Subsequently, the Center for Youth and Family Services unsuccessfully attempted to

engage respondent, who was allegedly incarcerated, in the case. Z.B.D. was by then in the custody

of his maternal grandmother, where he was doing well.

¶9     At the April 5, 2023, dispositional hearing, respondent represented himself. The court

asked if anyone had any evidence to present. Respondent replied, “A lot of it, yes.” He handed

the court a witness list and an exhibit list. Respondent explained what he intended to prove with

each witness and stated that the exhibits were generally intended to persuade the court “to

terminate the rights of Tangula [B.]”

¶ 10   The court explained that it would not terminate anyone’s parental rights at that proceeding.

The only matters to be decided for each child were “whether that child ought to be made a ward

of the Court. If so, then what to do with guardianship and what to do about custody.” Asked how

his evidence would be relevant to those issues, respondent replied, “I think it would support

making the children a ward of the Court, and, hopefully, leaving them in the custody of where they

are.” The court refused respondent’s proffered evidence, finding that it would be either irrelevant

or cumulative.

¶ 11   After listening to recommendations, the court made Z.B.D. its ward, found Tangula B. and

respondent unfit and unable, and Marcell D. unfit, unable, and unwilling to parent. It ordered

Z.B.D. removed from his parents and placed in the custody and guardianship of DCFS.

¶ 12   Respondent requested visitation with Z.B.D. However, he further stated:

                 “And I would decline to participate with any DNA taken of mine. I’m a—I’m a

       convicted felon, so there’s DNA on file for me. I would ask that that DNA be used.

       Because of my underlying case, I’ve seen situations where they use—they—you—they get

                                                3
       DNA from you, and then plant it. So, I’m not gonna give any D—any DNA while I have

       pending charges. So, they can use what’s still on file.”

Finding that this “conspiracy theory *** lobbed to me is ridiculous,” the court ordered respondent

to cooperate with DNA testing.

¶ 13   Respondent filed a notice of appeal. He also filed a motion to stay the court’s order

requiring DNA testing. He alleged that a private DNA test established that he was Z.B.D.’s father.

He further alleged:

       “I have hard evidence that the State has planted DNA where there initially was none in

       case 21-CF-329 and fear that they will do the same thing to me in my felony case 20-CF-

       499. When that case has been resolved I will have no problem submitting to the testing.

       *** There has been no DNA recovered, tested, or at all involved in my 20-CF-499 case

       and it is in my best interest that I make sure it stays that way.”

¶ 14   The court denied the motion, explaining that the court and the minors “need legal paternity

established and are not required to accept the claimed results of private genetic testing that [was]

never utilized to obtain a judgment of paternity.”

¶ 15                                    ANALYSIS

¶ 16   Appellate counsel concludes that there is no reasonably meritorious argument that the

circuit court erred by requiring respondent to submit to DNA testing and denying his motion to

stay the order. We agree.

¶ 17   Children have an interest in a stable home life free from the “uncertain and fluctuating

world of foster care.” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 365 (2004). “[C]hild-custody litigation must be

concluded as rapidly as is consistent with fairness.” Lassiter v. Department of Social Services,

452 U.S. 18, 32 (1981).

                                                  4
¶ 18   The circuit court recognized this need for stability in ordering respondent to cooperate with

DNA testing and denying his motion for a stay. A fundamental step in providing the needed

stability for Z.B.D. is ascertaining who his father is. Respondent has sought visitation with the

minor absent proof that he is his parent.

¶ 19   Respondent’s only reason for not cooperating with DNA testing was a vague, unsupported

fear that the results might be misused at some future time in an unrelated case. As counsel notes,

respondent has provided no evidence that the State “planted” DNA in the 2021 criminal case or

that it is likely to do so again in the 2020 case. Even indulging respondent’s wild speculation, his

theory makes little sense. He asserted that the State had his DNA profile in its database and a State

actor misused it in one of his criminal cases. He does not explain why that same person could not

have used the existing DNA profile in the even older case rather than await a new DNA test that

might never occur.

¶ 20   Respondent claimed that a private DNA test established that he is Z.B.D.’s father but

offered no proof. He provided no details on who did the test or how the results might be obtained.

Given Z.B.D.’s compelling interest in achieving stability in his life as quickly as practicable, the

circuit court did not err in ordering respondent to cooperate with DNA testing and in rejecting his

highly speculative, unproven “conspiracy theory.”

¶ 21   Counsel asserts that, in discussing the case with respondent, he wanted to raise the issue

whether the circuit court erred in rejecting his proffered evidence. Respondent’s asserted reasons

for wanting to present evidence were to persuade the court to “mak[e] the children a ward of the

Court, and, hopefully, leav[e] them in the custody of where they are” and to terminate Tangula

B.’s parental rights.

                                                 5
¶ 22   Counsel concludes, however, that the court correctly decided that the evidence was either

cumulative or irrelevant.

¶ 23   As to the latter, the court explained that the termination of parental rights was not the

subject of the hearing. The circuit court has discretion to decide whether evidence is relevant and

admissible. People v. Garcia, 2012 IL App (2d) 100656, ¶ 17. The court did not abuse its

discretion in rejecting evidence offered to prove that Tangula B.’s parental rights should be

terminated on the ground that it was irrelevant.

¶ 24   As to the former point, the court rightly decided that any such evidence from respondent

would be cumulative. The record was replete with evidence of Tangula B.’s poor parenting and,

indeed, she stipulated that Z.B.D. was neglected.       Based on these factors and the parties’

recommendations, the court found Tangula B. unfit and granted custody and guardianship of

Z.B.D. to DCFS, which apparently intended to continue the current placement. Thus, respondent

essentially received the relief he requested. See Material Service Corp. v. Department of Revenue,

98 Ill. 2d 382, 386 (1983) (“one who has obtained by judgment all that has been asked for in the

trial court cannot appeal from the judgment”).

¶ 25                                  CONCLUSION

¶ 26   As this appeal presents no issue of arguable merit, we grant respondent’s counsel leave to

withdraw and affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

¶ 27   Motion granted; judgment affirmed.

                                                   6