Court Opinion

ID: 9840498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-18 20:05:30.911161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:34:03.970666
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (5th) 230290-U                                  NOTICE
        NOTICE
Decision filed 09/18/23.                                                                       This order was filed
The text of this decision   NOS. 5-23-0290, 5-23-0291, 5-23-0292, 5-23-0293, 5-23-0294 cons.   under Supreme Court
may   be    changed    or                                                                      Rule 23 and is not
corrected prior to the
filing of a Petition for
                                                       IN THE                                  precedent except in the
                                                                                               limited     circumstances
Rehearing       or    the
                                                                                               allowed      under   Rule
disposi ion of the same.                APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS                            23(e)(1).

                                       FIFTH DISTRICT
           ________________________________________________________________________

           In re K.H., I.H., I.H., I.H., and K.H., Minors
                                                       )     Appeal from the
                                                       )     Circuit Court of
           (The People of the State of Illinois,       )     Jackson County.
                                                       )
                 Petitioner-Appellee,                  )     Nos. 22-JA-30, 22-JA-31,
                                                       )     22-JA-32, 22-JA-33, &
           v.                                          )     22-JA-34
                                                       )
           K.S.,                                       )     Honorable
                                                       )     Ella L. Travelstead,
                 Respondent-Appellant).                )     Judge, presiding.
           ________________________________________________________________________

                      JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court.
                      Justices Welch and McHaney concurred in the judgment.

                                                     ORDER

           ¶1         Held: The circuit court’s decision to deny an oral motion for new counsel made
                            during the adjudicatory hearing was not an abuse of discretion. The circuit
                            court’s findings in the adjudicatory orders and dispositional orders were not
                            against the manifest weight of the evidence.

           ¶2         The respondent, K.S. (Mother), appeals the denial of her motion for new counsel.

           Mother additionally claims that the amended adjudicatory orders and dispositional orders

           entered by the circuit court of Jackson County in the juvenile cases for five children were

           against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

                                                           1
¶3                               I. BACKGROUND

¶4     The respondent, K.S. (Mother), is the biological mother and I.H. (Father) is the

biological father of K.H., born September 29, 2016, I.H., born May 1, 2018, I.H., born May

1, 2018, I.H., born April 29, 2019, K.H., born August 4, 2020, and I.H., born December 1,

2021. K.H. who was born August 4, 2020, in St. Louis, Missouri, has been hospitalized

since birth and resides in a long-term care facility in Indiana. I.H., born April 29, 2019,

died on June 22, 2022. Mother and Father were arrested due to her death. Their four

children who remained at home were taken into protective custody after the arrest of

Mother and Father, while their fifth child remained in the Indiana long-term care facility.

¶5     Mother and Father have a history of involvement with the Department of Children

and Family Services (DCFS). Mother had three children, D.M., born March 3, 2001, D.S.,

born September 5, 2002, and T.S., born May 4, 2004, before forming a relationship with

Father. I.H., born April 15, 2006, I.H., born February 22, 2007, K.H., born April 11, 2009,

T.H., born July 20, 2011, K.H., born May 28, 2012, T.H., born June 27, 2013, and K.H.,

born July 1, 2014, were also the biological children of Mother and Father. The seven oldest

children were removed from Mother and Father’s care in April of 2012, as a result of

allegations of significant abuse by Father. The youngest three children, K.H., born May 28,

2012, T.H., born June 27, 2013, and K.H., born July 1, 2014, were subsequently taken into

custody after their births. K.H., who was born at 30 weeks gestation on July 1, 2014, died

on May 20, 2015, while in foster care. Father surrendered his parental rights to his

biological children in the prior juvenile cases. The circuit court entered an order

terminating Mother’s parental rights. Mother appealed, and we affirmed the judgment of
                                           2
the circuit court of Jackson County. See In re Demonquez M., 2016 IL App (5th) 150130-

U.

¶6     On June 27, 2022, the State filed five juvenile petitions for Mother and Father’s

children born between September 29, 2016, and December 1, 2021. The petitions were

substantially similar as each petition alleged neglect based on the child being in an

environment injurious to her welfare and they were not receiving proper support or medical

care pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-

3(1)(a), (b) (West 2020)). In the juvenile petition for K.H., the child living in a long-term

care facility, the State additionally alleged that Mother and Father were uncooperative with

the hospital in providing medical care and they have not received the training necessary to

allow the child to return home.

¶7     The State’s petitions averred that the minors’ three-year-old sibling was brought to

an emergency room by Father and died at the hospital. The child appeared to be

malnourished and “had the stature of an 18-month-old rather than that of a 3-year-old.”

Mother and Father were arrested on charges related to the death of their child in People v.

Hill, No. 2022-CF-313 (Cir. Ct. Jackson County) and People v. Simelton, No. 2022-CF-

314 (Cir. Ct. Jackson County). Mother and Father were incarcerated, and the surviving

children were taken into protective custody. 1

¶8     The petitions additionally averred that the children living at home with Mother and

Father were malnourished, and some had marks around their ankles which appeared to be

       1
           K.H., born August 4, 2020, remained at the extended care facility in Indiana.
                                                      3
caused by restraints. The six-year-old, K.H., was not able to eat, unable to communicate,

and had to be held constantly. K.H. and her siblings wore diapers although diapers should

not have been necessary at their ages, except for the six-month-old. Their bedrooms only

contained a mattress or bed. Notably, there were cameras in the bedrooms and throughout

the house. The petitions referenced the prior juvenile cases where Mother’s parental rights

were terminated and Father had surrendered his parental rights.

¶9     The State subsequently filed amended petitions which requested expedited

termination of parental rights and the appointment of a guardian with power to consent to

adoption. The State alleged that Mother was unfit under multiple sections of the Illinois

Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2020)). The State requested that the circuit court

find, by clear and convincing evidence, at the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing that

Mother was unfit.

¶ 10                           A. Shelter Care Hearing

¶ 11   The shelter care hearing was held after the children were placed in protective

custody. Alyssa Norman, an investigator from DCFS, testified. Norman became involved

after she received a report that Mother and Father’s three-year-old child died on June 22,

2022. Because both parents were arrested, the children were taken into protective custody.

When the children were removed from their parents’ care, they were taken to the hospital

because they appeared to be malnourished. The three older children were “very dirty” and

“non-verbal for their ages.” They appeared as if they did not know how to eat or drink,

other than out of a bottle. Norman noticed marks on the ankles of the children. Norman

testified that she touched the ankle of one of the twins, and the child cried in pain. The
                                            4
youngest child also had a mark on an ankle but appeared to be more well-nourished than

the older children.

¶ 12   Norman testified that the three older children were transferred from the emergency

room to the St. Louis Children’s Hospital due to malnourishment and dehydration. The

baby did not require further hospitalization. K.H., born August 4, 2020, remained

hospitalized in Indiana.

¶ 13   Norman testified that if K.H. were to be released from the Indiana hospital, the

hospital would contact the parents. Mother and Father were previously not cooperative

with K.H.’s care and needed to learn how to care for K.H. if she were to return home.

Norman was not aware if Mother and Father resolved the issue.

¶ 14   The circuit court found that there was probable cause for the filing of each of the

five petitions, and there was an immediate and urgent necessity to remove the minor

children from the household. DCFS was given temporary custody and guardianship.

¶ 15   On December 6, 2022, the guardian ad litem (GAL) filed a motion to cease

visitation where it was not in the children’s best interests to have visitation with Mother.

Father remained incarcerated and was not included in the motion. The GAL asserted in her

motion that on November 9, 2022, Mother had pleaded guilty to endangering the life or

health of her child in People v. Simelton, No. 2022-CF-314 (Cir. Ct. Jackson County). In

that criminal matter, Mother acknowledged that she failed to protect her children from the

harm they suffered in their home.

                                             5
¶ 16                               B. Adjudication

¶ 17   The adjudicatory hearing was scheduled for December 15, 2022. On that date, the

State presented as Exhibit 1, Mother’s plea of guilty to endangering the life or health of a

child, the probation order, and included as an addendum to the probation order the

judgment in People v. Simelton, No. 2022-CF-314 (Cir. Ct. Jackson County). In that

criminal case, Mother was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, aggravated

domestic battery, and two counts of child endangerment. Mother pled guilty to a count of

child endangerment and in exchange for her plea, she received a sentence of 30 months of

probation and time served. Mother provided information to the Illinois State Police on the

death of I.H., born April 29, 2019, who died on June 22, 2022. In the addendum to the

probation order, Mother acknowledged “her own conduct in failing to protect her children”

and agreed to “testify truthfully in any future proceeding.” Exhibit 1 was admitted without

objection. Father requested a continuance for the adjudicatory hearing, which was granted.

¶ 18   The adjudicatory hearing resumed on February 23, 2023. Justin Haney, a special

agent with the Illinois State Police, testified. Haney was a member of the Child Death Task

Force. He testified that he attended the autopsy of I.H. and her cause of death was blunt

trauma to the abdomen which caused internal bleeding.

¶ 19   Rebecca Grammer, a child protection advanced specialist with DCFS, also testified.

Grammer indicated that several children were previously removed from Mother and

Father’s care. In the prior cases, DCFS was concerned with domestic violence between

Mother and Father as well as “excessive physical punishment” that resulted in injuries.

DCFS was also concerned that the children did not receive food on a regular basis.
                                          6
¶ 20   Grammer further testified to the removal of the four children from Mother and

Father’s care in this matter. Mother and Father refused to give DCFS access to their home.

On June 23, 2022, the Illinois State Police SWAT team entered the home to remove the

children. DCFS caseworkers waited approximately a half block away to receive the

children. They did not enter the home to view the conditions.

¶ 21   The police carried the children to the caseworkers. The children did not have the

strength or knowledge to climb into car seats. Grammer testified that the baby was “chunky

and healthy looking.” The other three children appeared “extremely small” and “extremely

frail looking.” The children all wore diapers. The four-year-old twins and the six-year-old

appeared to have their own language. Grammer testified that they “were kind of making

noises, like beeps.” The children were taken to an emergency room in Herrin, Illinois.

¶ 22   Grammer testified to being in the emergency room with the children. Grammer

explained that the children were unable to walk and testified that “you would stand them

up and it was almost like they had frog legs. They would go back down to the floor.” The

children were offered food and they did not know what to do with the food. For example,

the six-year-old child, K.H., smashed a cracker with her hands and then licked her hands.

¶ 23   Morgan Echols, a physician’s assistant with Herrin Hospital, testified that she

treated the four children in the emergency room. According to Echols, the twins’ condition

was “very poor.” The twins were nonverbal, and they were unable to walk. One twin would

not eat or drink, while the other twin consumed everything given to her. She would grab

the food and smash it. She did not appear to know how to use a fork or a spoon. The children

also did not know to drink from a cup or use a straw. They would only drink from a bottle.
                                            7
¶ 24   Echols testified that the twins were in the first or second percentile on the children’s

height and weight chart. The six-year-old was also at the very bottom of the chart. The

baby was in the upper range and appeared healthy. Echols testified that the three older

children were “cachectic” and “very unhealthy and needed medical attention fairly

immediately.” Echols explained that the children had low glucose levels which meant that

“they hadn’t had anything to eat or drink recently. They are hungry.” Echols further

testified that it would have taken years to reach their level of malnutrition. The children

required medical attention and were not “fit to be discharged into a foster care anywhere.”

¶ 25   Echols testified to ligature marks around the ankles and feet of the children. She

explained that a ligature mark was made by anything that tied off. The marks could have

been caused by string, a zip tie, or a metal cable, but she was not aware of what caused the

marks. The baby, I.H., had a scarred diaper rash that was never treated. One of the twins

had what appeared to be an old cigarette burn on the back of her leg and an inward turning

foot that she would not let anyone touch. Echols testified that the children were fearful,

screamed, and were “trying to kind of claw and push us away, hit, scratch. Anything they

could do to get away from us.”

¶ 26   Echols additionally testified that the children, except for one, did not have a medical

history in the “SIH system,” a records system that can be seen throughout several states

and the local area. One child had one past visit in her chart where she had recently tested

positive for Covid. While in the emergency room the children tested negative for Covid.

Medical records from the emergency room visit were admitted into evidence.

                                              8
¶ 27   Mekenna Arca, a physician at St. Louis Children’s Hospital, testified. Dr. Arca

specialized in pediatrics and treated the three older children after they were transferred

from the emergency room to Children’s Hospital. The oldest child was able to say, “go

away” and “mom.” She would otherwise babble. The twins would babble and did not speak

“real words.” Dr. Arca testified that when food was given to the children, “they’d wipe it

on their faces, they would crunch crackers up and play with it. They did know how to drink

out of a bottle but not a sippy cup.” None of the children were toilet trained. The six-year-

old was able to walk, but Dr. Arca was not aware if the twins were able to walk normally.

¶ 28   One of the twins was considered “moderately malnourished” and the other twin had

a BMI in the lower end of the normal range. She received a nasogastric tube after being

monitored for several days because she was not “taking in enough to sustain adequate

nutrition.” The six-year-old met the criteria for “mild malnutrition.” Dr. Arca testified that

none of the children had an underlying medical condition that could have caused

malnutrition.

¶ 29   The children were monitored for refeeding syndrome. Dr. Arca explained that

“when your body has not seen food or good nutrition and you start to give it the nutrition

it needs, the calories it needs, you can start to have electrolytes derangement until the body

figures out what to do with the nutrients that it’s not used to seeing.” The children did not

develop refeeding syndrome while in care.

¶ 30   Dr. Arca testified that she only treated the children for a week, but they continued

treatment at Children’s Hospital for a couple of months. She believed that they were

transferred from Children’s Hospital to Ranken Jordan, a pediatric bridge hospital that
                                          9
provided intensive rehabilitation for children. The children needed to learn how to eat and

needed developmental therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, and physical

therapy. Medical records from St. Louis Children’s Hospital were admitted into evidence.

¶ 31   Alyssa Norman, a child protective specialist with DCFS, also testified. Norman is

also a member of the Illinois Child Death Task Force. Norman investigated Mother and

Father and “indicated” Mother and Father on numerous allegations related to abuse and

neglect of the children. A summary of the indicated reports was admitted into evidence.

¶ 32   The remainder of the adjudicatory hearing was held on March 3, 2023. Before

testimony resumed, Mother stated, “I need another attorney.” Mother’s counsel requested

that the circuit court entertain Mother’s motion due to a breakdown in their communication.

The circuit court denied Mother’s request for a new attorney, finding that it was

inappropriate to switch attorneys during the adjudicatory hearing. The circuit court,

however, stated that Mother could proceed pro se or file a written motion after the

conclusion of the hearing. Mother decided to proceed with her appointed counsel.

¶ 33   Mother testified that she had surgery after her youngest child, I.H., was born. She

required a drainage tube in her stomach for a couple months. Mother had complications

with her health through April of 2022. During that time, she was not physically able to care

for her children. I.H. had difficulties with sleeping through the night. Mother relied on

Father to care for the other children while she cared for the baby, I.H.

¶ 34   Mother testified that their oldest child, K.H., would eat pizza, chicken nuggets, and

“Lunchables.” The twins refused to eat solid food. Mother and Father would use a blender

and spoon feed vegetables and meat to the twins. The baby, I.H., was fed from a bottle.
                                         10
Mother testified that on the day that the children were removed from her care, her children

were “walking,” “running,” and “playing.”

¶ 35   On March 13, 2023, the circuit court entered a written adjudicatory order finding

that each of the children were neglected in that they were in an environment that was

injurious to their welfare, and they were not receiving proper support or medical care. The

circuit court’s adjudicatory orders specifically stated:

       “This finding is based on the following facts: the minors [K.H., I.H., and
       I.H.] are medically neglected and severely malnourished and the parents
       failed to provide adequate food and nutrition despite having the ability to do
       so. The minors [K.H. and I.H.] are minors for whom the respondents are also
       responsible and considering the circumstances and proof of malnourishment
       and medical neglect of the minor’s siblings, the Court finds sufficient
       evidence the minors [K.H. and I.H.] are in an injurious environment.”

DCFS was ordered to prepare and submit a dispositional report. The Guardianship

Administrator of DCFS was granted authority to consent to medical treatment and DCFS

remained as the legal custodian of the minors with authority to place the minors.

¶ 36   The circuit court amended its adjudicatory order sua sponte on March 24, 2023, to

include the language “on the basis of clear and convincing evidence admitted at the

adjudicatory hearing the parents, [Mother] and [Father], pursuant to 705 ILCS 405/2-21(5),

are unfit persons under subdivision D of Section 1 of the Adoption Act.” The remaining

findings made by the circuit court were identical to the initial adjudicatory orders.

¶ 37                            C. Dispositional Report

¶ 38   The dispositional report was submitted to the circuit court on March 21, 2023, by

Marissa Moss, the DCFS caseworker, and Morgan White, the DCFS supervisor. The report

included that DCFS became involved with the family after an emergency report of the
                                       11
death of three-year-old I.H. When Father presented I.H. to the ER, he stated that the entire

family had contracted Covid. He administered “syringes and suppositories” but I.H. would

not get better.

¶ 39   The dispositional report included a history of DCFS involvement and indicated

reports. Mother was investigated by DCFS in 2012, 2014, and 2022, and indicated for

multiple allegations of abuse and neglect. The latest DCFS report, June 22, 2022, indicated

Mother and Father for: death by abuse; cuts, welts, and bruises; death by neglect; internal

injuries by neglect; internal injuries by abuse; cuts, bruises, welts, abrasions, and oral

injuries by neglect; malnutrition; and substantial risk of physical injury/environment

injurious to health and welfare by neglect.

¶ 40   The dispositional report additionally included that Mother participated in an

integrated assessment (IA) on July 20, 2022. The clinical screener, Kimberly Huss, LCWS,

reported in Mother’s IA that:

       “At this time, it does not appear that there are services that can enable
       [Mother] to improve her functioning to the degree necessary to safely parent
       and meet the well-being needs of her children. [Mother] has, for at least ten
       years, failed to make her children a priority. She failed to intervene on their
       behalf and failed to ensure their most basic needs were met. [Mother] has
       never recognized the threat she, her husband, or her home environment posed
       to any of her children. There is no indication at this time that she will ever be
       able to accept her role in the maltreatment her children have endured.
       [Mother’s] ongoing ability to excuse her husband’s abusive behavior, and
       her role in neglecting the children is, by this point, so ingrained that there is
       little possibility that she would ever be able to recognize risks to her children
       or understand strategies for meeting a child’s developmental, nutritional,
       emotional, and educational needs. It has been documented that the State plans
       to pursue the termination of reasonable efforts for reunification. We wholly
       support this plan. Because the State is seeking to terminate reasonable efforts,
       and because [Mother] has, for ten years, shown no ability to correct the
       conditions in her home, we do not feel that there are any services that can be
                                               12
       provided to [Mother] to ensure that any child will ever be safe in her care.
       The level of risk presented in this case, the long history of child welfare
       involvement and failed historical efforts, despite multiple interventions, to
       render changes in behavior, and the severity of child abuse and neglect that
       has occurred is significant. We do not feel that there are any services that can
       be offered to [Mother] that will provide her with the skills to safely parent a
       child. The Assessment Team offers no recommendations for [Mother].”

The report included that DCFS was required to complete a service plan for all parents until

a goal other than to return home has been established. DCFS provided Mother with a

service plan that included requirements to complete parenting and mental health services

and to cooperate with DCFS. Mother does not communicate with DCFS and DCFS was

unaware of whether Mother had engaged in any services. The report additionally included

recommendations from a 2013 psychological evaluation by Dr. Jean Cunningham, a

licensed clinical psychologist. Dr. Cunningham stated in her prior evaluation that returning

the children to Mother was “very risky” and “any children born to [Mother] should be

carefully monitored for signs of abuse and neglect.”

¶ 41   The dispositional report included that three-year-old I.H. died due to internal

bleeding because of a liver laceration and contusion. She suffered from blunt force trauma

to the abdomen. I.H. additionally suffered from significant continuing starvation,

dehydration, and neglect which were found as underlying causes connected to her death.

Her siblings were subjected to the same living environment. Mother pled guilty to child

endangerment in a criminal case related to I.H.’s death. Mother acknowledged that she

failed to protect her children from harm in a plea agreement.

¶ 42   The three older children were placed in a long-term medical facility to receive

physical, occupational, and speech therapy. They were all considered medically fragile and
                                            13
diagnosed with malnutrition, feeding difficulty, speech delay, and motor delay, secondary

to severe emotional and physical neglect. Each of the three children had a G-tube placed

and have gained weight since coming into care. They additionally required medication to

sleep, multiple psychotropic medications, and sedatives during bath times. One of the twins

was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Both twins had sensory deprivation and were

diagnosed with disinhibited social engagement disorder, which is a trauma-related

diagnosis in the DSM-5. 2

¶ 43    The six-month-old baby, I.H., was placed in a foster home and was receiving

physical and occupational therapy, as well as early childhood services. She was diagnosed

with feeding difficulty and left foot excessive supination. Mother and Father have an

additional child, K.H., who was hospitalized at birth and subsequently transferred to a long-

term care facility in Indiana, where she remains. K.H. has a G-tube placed and is dependent

on a ventilator.

¶ 44    The report also addressed that the State and the GAL filed motions for expedited

termination of parental rights and early termination of reasonable efforts. The parents had

not been receiving visitation with the children and the GAL filed a motion for no visitation.

DCFS believed that visitation would not be in the best interests of the children due to the

significant trauma experienced by the children in the same home that contributed to their

        2
         The DSM-5 is the standard classification manual of mental disorders used by mental health
professionals in the United States. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, DSM-5 Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorders 268-270 (2013).
                                                   14
sister’s death. DCFS recommended that DCFS be granted custody and guardianship of the

minors and early termination of Mother and Father’s parental rights.

¶ 45                           D. Dispositional Hearing

¶ 46   Mother’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on March 27, 2023, the

morning of the dispositional hearing. Mother’s counsel asserted that there was an

irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and that Mother had verbally

requested that counsel withdraw at the previous court appearance. The circuit court denied

the motion to withdraw because it was filed on the morning of the dispositional hearing.

¶ 47   Mother’s counsel then requested a continuance and argued that the circuit court

entered an amended adjudicatory order which included a finding that was not orally

pronounced at the adjudicatory hearing. The State informed the circuit court that based on

the findings during the adjudicatory hearing, the State was not proceeding with expedited

termination of parental rights during the dispositional hearing. The circuit court denied the

motion to continue with the understanding that the State was not proceeding with expedited

termination. The circuit court then confirmed that the parties received a copy of the

dispositional report filed by DCFS and proceeded with the dispositional hearing.

¶ 48   The State did not present any witnesses. The GAL informed the circuit court that

the dispositional report was well written, lengthy, and detailed and she was not presenting

witnesses.

¶ 49   Father’s counsel objected to the dispositional report referencing the autopsy

findings for I.H. where the autopsy was not admitted into evidence during the adjudication

hearing and no witness testified to the autopsy. The State argued that under the Juvenile
                                            15
Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2022)), all evidence helpful in determining the

questions of the best interests of the minors, “including oral and written reports, may be

admitted and may be relied upon to the extent of its probative value, even though not

competent for the purposes of the adjudicatory hearing.” The State further argued that the

circuit court can rely on information presented at the dispositional hearing that could not

be admitted into evidence at the adjudicatory hearing. The circuit court denied Father’s

objection to the dispositional report.

¶ 50   Father’s counsel called Marissa Moss, the DCFS caseworker, to testify. Moss

testified that she authored the March 2023 dispositional report. Moss testified that Father

had not participated in an IA, and he was not involved in any services due to his

incarceration. Mother’s counsel then questioned Moss. Mother completed an IA, and

Mother was required to engage in parenting services, mental health services, and cooperate

with DCFS. Mother had not initiated any services. Mother was invited to attend an

Administrative Case Review (ACR) where DCFS discusses updates regarding the children

and any issues the parents may have in engaging in services. Mother joined the ACR over

the phone, but she ended the call because she was not allowed to record the conversation.

¶ 51   The State cross-examined Moss. Moss testified that DCFS’s recommendations for

the disposition of the five juvenile cases were included in the written report. Father’s

counsel questioned Moss on whether the recommendations by DCFS changed because the

State was no longer proceeding with the expedited termination efforts at the dispositional

hearing. Moss testified that the State’s decision did not affect DCFS’s recommendation

and stated, “In the [IA] it’s stated that they do not feel that there were any services that
                                              16
could correct the conditions that led to DCFS involvement and protect the children from

the unsafe environment that the parents have offered in the past.” Moss additionally

testified that visitation would not be in the best interests of the children.

¶ 52    Father then testified on his own behalf regarding the prior juvenile cases. In 2017,

a juvenile proceeding took place in Alexander County, Illinois, and Mother and Father

were granted custody of K.H., the oldest child involved in this juvenile proceeding. Father

additionally testified that he was willing to complete any services recommended by DCFS.

During cross-examination by the State, Father acknowledged that four of his children were

immediately hospitalized when they were removed from his care. Father additionally was

aware that four of his children remained in a hospitalized setting. Mother did not testify or

present additional witnesses.

¶ 53    The State recommended that DCFS receive custody and guardianship of the five

children, which included K.H. in Indiana. The GAL additionally recommended that the

children should be made wards of the court and that DCFS should receive custody and

guardianship. Mother argued that the author of the dispositional report relied on a 2013

psychological evaluation by Dr. Jean Cunningham and it should not have been included in

the dispositional report where there was later involvement by DCFS in 2016 and 2017 or

2018.

¶ 54    The circuit court found that it was consistent with the health, welfare, and safety,

and in the best interests of all five minors that they be made wards of the court. The circuit

court based its decision on the dispositional report as well as testimony presented. The

                                              17
circuit court found that Mother and Father were unfit to parent the children. DCFS received

custody and guardianship of the children.

¶ 55   The circuit court then addressed the motion to cease visitation filed by the GAL.

The GAL argued that three of the children were receiving intensive treatment in a long-

term care facility in Illinois due to their trauma, one child was in an out-of-state facility,

and the baby was in foster care. Visitation with Mother was not in the children’s best

interests. The GAL referenced Mother’s guilty plea in People v. Simelton, No. 2022-CF-

314 (Cir. Ct. Jackson County) where Mother acknowledged that she failed to protect the

children from harm. Mother argued against restricting visitation as no expert witness

testimony was presented that visitation with Mother would be detrimental to the children.

Mother requested in person or video supervised visitation as the children were nonverbal.

¶ 56   The circuit court granted the motion to cease visitation. The circuit court then

addressed the appropriate goals for the five children. The State did not provide a

recommendation. The GAL suggested that the circuit court could enter the goal of “cannot

be provided for in the home” but did not provide a recommendation. Father argued that

because the State was not proceeding with early termination efforts that the goal should

involve reunification with the children. Mother agreed with Father’s recommendation. The

State clarified that it had not elected not to proceed on the termination of parental rights.

Rather, the State believed it was in a position where it could not legally go forward with

termination during the dispositional hearing.

¶ 57   The formal written dispositional orders were entered on March 28, 2023. The

written order stated that the goals for the four older children would be “cannot be cared for
                                               18
in the home environment.” The goal of “return home within 12 months” was entered for

the youngest child, I.H. The circuit court additionally ordered that an incarcerated parent

shall not receive visitation. Mother appealed in each of the five children’s cases and the

appeals were consolidated.

¶ 58                                II. ANALYSIS

¶ 59   On appeal, Mother argues that the circuit court erred by denying Mother’s request

for new counsel. Mother additionally claims that the adjudicatory and dispositional orders

were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 60   Parents of the minors subject to the proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act have

“the right to be represented by counsel” as provided by statute. 705 ILCS 405/1-5(1) (West

2022). Counsel appointed for any indigent party shall appear at all stages of the trial court

proceeding, “subject to withdrawal, vacating of appointment, or substitution pursuant to

Supreme Court Rules or the Code of Civil Procedure.” 705 ILCS 405/1-5(1) (West 2022).

¶ 61   “The legislature recognizes that serious delay in the adjudication of abuse, neglect,

or dependency cases can cause grave harm to the minor and the family and that it frustrates

the health, safety and best interests of the minor and the effort to establish permanent homes

for children in need.” 705 ILCS 405/2-14(a) (West 2022). An adjudicatory hearing shall

commence within 90 days of the date of service of process. 705 ILCS 405/2-14(b) (West

2022). “Once commenced, subsequent delay in the proceedings may be allowed by the

court when necessary to ensure a fair hearing.” 705 ILCS 405/2-14(b) (West 2022). Under

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 13, the circuit court may deny a motion to withdraw “if

granting the motion would delay the trial of the case, or would otherwise be inequitable.”
                                            19
S. Ct. R. 13(c)(3) (eff. Jan. 1, 2023). The decision to deny a request for substitution of

counsel will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. In re Travarius O., 343 Ill.

App. 3d 844, 852 (2003).

¶ 62   Mother made an oral motion for new counsel during the adjudicatory hearing. The

circuit court denied Mother’s oral motion based on the timing of her request; however, the

circuit court allowed Mother to proceed pro se or file a written motion for new counsel

after the adjudicatory hearing concluded. Mother did neither. She chose to continue with

her court-appointed attorney. If the circuit court had appointed new counsel for Mother, a

continuance would have been inevitable. Further delay would not have been appropriate.

The circuit court’s decision to deny Mother’s request for new counsel was not an abuse of

discretion.

¶ 63   The Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2022)) provides a two-step

process to decide whether a minor should become a ward of the court. In re A.P., 2012 IL

113875, ¶ 18. The first step is the adjudicatory hearing on the petition of wardship. In re

A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 19. “At the adjudicatory hearing, the court shall first consider only

the question [of] whether the minor is abused, neglected or dependent.” 705 ILCS 405/2-

18(1) (West 2022). The State must prove neglect, dependence, or abuse by a preponderance

of the evidence. In re N.B., 191 Ill. 2d 338, 343 (2000). A circuit court’s finding of abuse

or neglect will only be reversed if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re

Davon H., 2015 IL App (1st) 150926, ¶ 47.

¶ 64   If the circuit court determines that a minor has been abused, neglected, or dependent,

then the circuit court proceeds to the second step, the dispositional hearing. In re A.P., 2012
                                              20
IL 113875, ¶ 21. During the dispositional hearing, the circuit court determines whether it

is consistent with the health, safety, and best interests of the minors and the public for the

minors to be made a ward of the court. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 21. The circuit court

additionally considers the permanency goal set for the minor at the dispositional hearing.

705 ILCS 405/2-22(1) (West 2022). A circuit court’s determination of wardship will be

reversed if the factual findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence or if the

court abused its discretion by selecting an inappropriate dispositional order. In re Davon

H., 2015 IL App (1st) 150926, ¶ 58.

¶ 65   The State alleged that the children were neglected pursuant to sections 2-3(1)(a) and

(b) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a), (b) (West 2020)), in that the

children’s environment was injurious to their welfare and they were not receiving the

proper support or medical care necessary for their welfare. The allegations included that

the children’s sibling, I.H., died on June 22, 2022, and Mother and Father were arrested

and incarcerated on charges relating to I.H.’s death. Medical examinations of the children

residing with Mother and Father established that three of the four children showed

significant signs of neglect, malnourishment, and the children had marks around their

ankles indicating that they may have been in restraints.

¶ 66   During the adjudicatory hearing, testimony was presented from Justin Haney, a

special agent with the Illinois State Police, that the children’s sibling, I.H., died due to blunt

trauma to the abdomen which caused internal bleeding. Additionally, Mother had pled

guilty to child endangerment in People v. Simelton, No. 2022-CF-314 (Cir. Ct. Jackson

County) and, in her guilty plea, she acknowledged that she failed to protect her children.
                                           21
¶ 67   Rebecca Grammer, the DCFS investigator, testified that the four-year-old twins and

the six-year-old were “extremely frail looking.” They wore diapers, were unable to walk,

and did not understand how to eat solid food. They also appeared to have their own

language where they would “beep.” Morgan Echols, a physician’s assistant with Herrin

Hospital, testified that it would have taken years to reach their level of malnutrition. Echols

additionally testified that the children had ligature marks on their ankles, the baby had a

scarred untreated diaper rash, and there appeared to be a cigarette burn on the back of one

of the children’s legs.

¶ 68   Testimony was presented from Dr. Arca that one of the twins was “moderately

malnourished” and the six-year-old met the criteria for “mild malnutrition.” None of the

children had an underlying condition that could have caused malnutrition. After the

children received care from Children’s Hospital, they were transferred to a pediatric bridge

hospital that provided intensive rehabilitation. The three older children needed to learn how

to eat and would benefit from developmental therapy, speech therapy, occupational

therapy, and physical therapy. Sufficient evidence was presented during the adjudicatory

hearing for the circuit court to make its determination of neglect.

¶ 69   Mother argues that the dispositional order was unreasonable and arbitrary because

the children did not show signs of improvement after their removal from Mother and

Father’s care. The purpose of the dispositional hearing is to allow “the circuit court to

decide what further actions are in the best interests of a neglected, abused, or dependent

minor,” and it “give[s] the parents fair notice of what they must do to retain their rights to

their child.” In re G.F.H., 315 Ill. App. 3d 711, 715 (2000). We have thoroughly reviewed
                                              22
the record on appeal and conclude that it does not demonstrate that the circuit court’s

findings of neglect and its determination of wardship for each of the five children were

against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 70                              III. CONCLUSION

¶ 71   For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the circuit court of Jackson County, as

to each of the five children, are affirmed.

¶ 72   Affirmed.

                                              23