Court Opinion

ID: 9400133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 16:05:28.63731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:42.390422
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (5th) 220661-U
            NOTICE
                                                                                           NOTICE
 Decision filed 06/07/23. The
                                                                                This order was filed under
 text of this decision may be      NOS. 5-22-0661, 5-22-0662, 5-22-0663 cons.
                                                                                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 FAITH S., HAVEN S., and AMELIA S., Minors )     Appeal from the
                                                )     Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois,           )     Christian County.
                                                )
       Petitioner-Appellee,                     )
                                                )     Nos. 17-JA-42, 17-JA-43
v.                                              )           17-JA-44
                                                )
                                                )
Lacsey S.,                                      )     Honorable
                                                )     Jeffrey A. DeLong,
       Respondent-Appellant).                   )     Judge, presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________

         PRESIDING JUSTICE BOIE delivered the judgment of the court.
         Justices Moore and McHaney concurred in the judgment.

                                                   ORDER

¶1       Held: Where evidence amply supported the circuit court’s conclusions that respondent
               was an unfit parent and that her children’s best interests required terminating her
               parental rights, and 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       The State filed petitions alleging that respondent, Lacsey S., was unfit to parent her three

daughters, Faith S., Haven S., and Amelia S. Following hearings, the circuit court found that

respondent was unfit and that it was in the children’s best interest to be made wards of the court.

Respondent appealed and the circuit court appointed counsel to represent her on appeal.

                                                       1
¶3     Respondent’s appointed appellate counsel has concluded that there is no reasonably

meritorious argument that the circuit court erred. Accordingly, he has filed a motion to withdraw

as counsel on appeal and a supporting memorandum. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); In re S.M., 314 Ill. App. 3d 682, 685 (2000) (Anders procedure applies to findings of

parental unfitness and termination of parental rights). Counsel notified respondent of his motion

and this court has provided her ample opportunity to respond. However, she has not done so.

Having read the record and counsel’s memorandum, we agree that there is no issue that could

support an appeal. Thus, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm the circuit court’s

judgment.

¶4     Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a)(5) (eff. July 1, 2018), our decision in this

case was due on or before March 2, 2023, absent good cause shown. Notice of appeal was filed

on October 3, 2022. On November 30, 2022, respondent’s attorney sought leave to withdraw

because he had recently been elected as state’s attorney for Christian County. This court granted

counsel’s motion and remanded the cause to the circuit court for the appointment of substitute

counsel. On January 12, 2023, the circuit court appointed attorney William Farr to represent

respondent on appeal. Farr filed his Anders motion on February 2, 2023, and his supporting

memorandum on March 2, 2023. This court gave respondent until April 19, 2023, to respond to

counsel’s Anders motion. On April 19, 2023, respondent filed a motion requesting an extension

of time to respond to counsel’s motion to withdraw. She was given until May 29, 2023, to respond

to counsel’s motion but, as noted above, no response was forthcoming. We find there to be good

cause for issuing our decision after March 2, 2023.

                                                2
¶5                                       BACKGROUND

¶6     At the fitness portion of the hearing, Jennifer Spracklin testified that she was formerly a

caseworker for Kemmerer Village and was assigned to respondent’s case. In August 2017, the

children were placed in shelter care after respondent suffered a heroin overdose. Spracklin

developed a service plan for respondent.

¶7     Respondent initially engaged in some services, but in August 2018 suffered a “relapse,”

when she tested positive for heroin and possibly cocaine. This resulted in her being sent to drug

court and, ultimately, sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.

¶8     After respondent was released in September 2019, she received a substance abuse

assessment which recommended individual and group therapy. However, respondent never

completed the recommended services. She was discharged from the program and “chose not to

reengage in those services.”

¶9     Respondent’s service plan compliance was rated “unsatisfactory” throughout 2019 and

2020. Spracklin concluded that respondent had not made reasonable progress toward the goal of

reunification between June 2020 and March 2021.

¶ 10   Michelle Quick took over as respondent’s caseworker in May 2021. Respondent had not

engaged in substance abuse treatment or mental health treatment since Quick took over the case.

Moreover, respondent had stopped taking prescribed medication. Quick opined that respondent

had not made satisfactory progress in any area except visitation.

¶ 11   The circuit court found respondent unfit and scheduled a best-interests hearing. There, Jeff

Powers testified that he was the children’s foster parent. He is respondent’s father.

                                                 3
¶ 12   He had a “99 %” attachment to the girls. They had their own rooms, they went to school,

and he provided them food and clothing. He was willing to continue to do so “to keep them from

going to a home.” He was willing to help the girls maintain a relationship with their mother.

¶ 13   Quick testified that the children were doing well in foster care. They were comfortable

and their needs were being met.

¶ 14   Respondent testified that she did not have much of a bond with Faith, who was then 14

years old. Faith had “a lot of resentment” for which she largely blamed respondent. However,

respondent communicated with Haven regularly through telephone messages and social media. A

recent decrease in visitation to once monthly, partly due to COVID restrictions, had made

maintaining a bond with her children difficult.

¶ 15   The court found that terminating respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best

interests. The court noted that they had been in foster care with their paternal grandfather for

approximately five years, respondent admitted that she had very little bond with Faith, but that

Powers was willing to facilitate respondent’s relationship with her children.

¶ 16   Respondent appealed in each case. On our own motion, we consolidated the appeals.

¶ 17                                       ANALYSIS

¶ 18   Counsel concludes that there is no reasonably meritorious argument that the circuit court

erred by finding respondent an unfit parent or terminating her parental rights. We agree.

¶ 19   To terminate a party’s parental rights, a circuit court must make two separate and distinct

findings: that the State has proven (1) that the parents are “unfit persons” within the meaning of

section 1(D) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2020)) and (2) that it is in the children’s

best interests to terminate that party’s parental rights, to appoint a guardian, and to authorize that

                                                  4
guardian to consent to the children’s adoption (705 ILCS 405/2-29(2) (West 2020)). In re M.H.,

2015 IL App (4th) 150397, ¶ 20.

¶ 20   Here, the court’s finding that respondent was unfit was amply supported by the record.

Spracklin and Quick testified that, after some initial progress, respondent had not engaged in

services since her release from prison in 2019. She had been discharged from a drug-treatment

program and did not “reengage.” Indeed, respondent failed to comply with any service-plan

directives other than visitation.

¶ 21   Similarly, the court’s finding that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best

interests was supported by the evidence. Their foster parent was their maternal grandfather. They

had been living with him for five years at the time of the hearing. He was providing for their

needs, was willing to continue to do so, and was willing to facilitate a relationship with their

mother.

¶ 22                                   CONCLUSION

¶ 23   As this appeal presents no issue of arguable merit, we grant OSAD leave to withdraw and

affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

¶ 24   Motion granted; judgment affirmed.

                                                5