In re J.A. , 2022 IL App (4th) 220457-U ( 2022 )

NOTICE
This Order was filed under
2022 IL App (4th) 220457-U FILED
Supreme Court Rule 23 and is October 25, 2022
not precedent except in the NO. 4-22-0457 Carla Bender
th
limited circumstances allowed 4 District Appellate
under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
In re J.A., a Minor ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
(The People of the State of Illinois, ) Tazewell County
Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 19JA108
)
v. ) Honorable
Dominique A., ) David A. Brown,
Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Cavanagh and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, granting appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and
finding the trial court’s termination of respondent’s parental rights was not against
the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶2 In September 2020, the State filed a petition for termination of parental rights
against respondent, Dominique A., the father of J.A. (born August 17, 2015). In April 2022, the
trial court granted the State’s petition and terminated respondent’s parental rights.
¶3 On appeal, appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw his representation of
respondent pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing respondent’s appeal
presents no potentially meritorious issues for review. We grant the motion and affirm the trial
court’s judgment terminating respondent’s parental rights.
¶4 I. BACKGROUND
¶5 In May 2019, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging J.A.,
then age three, was neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987
(705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2018)) in that the minor’s environment was injurious to his
welfare. The petition alleged respondent was found unfit in Tazewell County case No. 17-JA-
107, and there had been no subsequent finding of fitness, and he completed no services sufficient
to restore him to minimal parenting.
¶6 According to an integrated assessment dated August 9, 2019, the State indicated
respondent on May 9, 2017 (Tazewell County case No. 17-JA-107), with substantial risk of
physical injury/environment injurious to the health and welfare of a minor. Respondent had made
death threats to his daughter, the child’s mother, and the mother’s family on social media when
he also had access to firearms. Respondent had a history of cocaine and marijuana use. He failed
to comply with related court ordered tasks, including the completion of drug and alcohol testing,
counseling, parenting classes, domestic violence classes, and obtaining stable housing. The trial
court ultimately found respondent unfit, and according to the integrated assessment, there had
been no subsequent finding of fitness. The case was closed in December 2018.
¶7 The integrated assessment also provided that J.A. had been placed in his maternal
grandmother’s home and that her former husband, J.A.’s maternal grandfather, provided
significant support in caring for the child. J.A. stayed with his grandmother during the day and
his grandfather during evenings and through the night. A maternal half-sibling of J.A. also lived
in his grandmother’s home. J.A. spent weekends with respondent’s grandmother.
¶8 Respondent was provided frequent opportunities to visit J.A. at the home of J.A.’s
maternal grandfather or when J.A. visited respondent’s grandmother. Respondent reported he
had been J.A.’s primary caregiver for much of J.A.’s life, with the help of respondent’s
-2-
grandmother. However, in the integrated assessment, the reporter noted “it is suspected”
respondent’s grandmother had been the primary caregiver.
¶9 In response to the petition for adjudication of wardship, respondent filed an
answer in which he stipulated to the petition. In August 2019, the trial court conducted a
combined adjudicatory and dispositional hearing. The trial court found respondent had stipulated
to a finding of unfitness and entered an order to that effect. In its dispositional order, the court
found it in the minor's best interest that he be made a ward of the court and placed in the custody
and guardianship of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
¶ 10 A September 2019 status report noted respondent began attending counseling to
address domestic violence issues and registered to begin a parenting class. Later permanency
reports noted respondent continued to attend counseling and classes, but his visits with J.A.
became inconsistent. Respondent visited J.A. on weekends when respondent’s grandmother
picked up J.A. from foster care, but he often did not make the effort to travel to the foster home
to visit J.A. despite having a good relationship with J.A.’s maternal grandparents.
¶ 11 Following a February 2020 permanency review hearing, the trial court entered an
order finding respondent continued to be unfit and had not made reasonable efforts and progress
toward a goal of returning J.A. home. The court noted respondent was not progressing in services
and was sporadic with drug tests and counseling. The following month, respondent was arrested
for unlawful use of a weapon. In May 2020, a caseworker received an email from an investigator
concerning a DCFS hotline call expressing concerns about the safety of children living in
respondent’s home. The caller reported respondent threatened to slap his paramour’s five-month-
old child, threatened her three-year-old child, and threatened the paternal side of that child’s
family. Respondent was seen on a video recording walking through the house with guns while
-3-
making the threats, and photographs of respondent with guns appeared on social media. The
reporter stated there were multiple guns in the home and it was unknown whether the children
had access to them. Respondent was reported to have sent messages to people stating he was
going to harm his paramour’s children. The investigator reported the State subsequently
indicated respondent for substantial risk of physical injury/environment injurious to the health
and welfare of a minor.
¶ 12 Permanency reports filed in August 2020 showed respondent’s counselor
unsuccessfully discharged him from counseling on July 31, 2020, due to noncompliance. The
reports also noted respondent’s caseworker had not had any contact with respondent since May
14, 2020. The reports revealed respondent had been asked to complete 10 drug drops during the
current review cycle, and of the 5 he completed, all were positive for marijuana. An additional
drop completed for the newest DCFS investigation was also positive for marijuana.
Respondent’s visits with J.A. continued, but he did not take full advantage of offered visits at the
foster home. By that time, J.A. had been placed in the home of his maternal grandfather, who
was willing to be a permanent placement.
¶ 13 In September 2020, the State filed a petition for termination of parental rights,
seeking a finding of unfitness and termination of respondent’s parental rights. The State alleged
respondent was unfit because he failed to make reasonable progress toward the return of the
child within nine months after the adjudication of neglect (August 15, 2019, through May 15,
2020) (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2020)). In March 2022, respondent filed an answer to the
petition, in which he stipulated to the allegation in the petition. Accordingly, the trial court
(1) entered an order finding respondent unfit for failing to make reasonable progress toward the
return of J.A. during the nine-month period of August 15, 2019, through May 15, 2020, and
-4-
(2) set a best-interest hearing for April 28, 2022. J.A.’s mother surrendered her rights and is not a
part of this appeal.
¶ 14 On April 4, 2022, respondent was arrested for possession of a firearm by a felon,
resisting arrest, and traffic offenses. Respondent had also failed to appear in a previous criminal
action.
¶ 15 On April 12, 2022, the State filed a best interest report, noting J.A.’s maternal
grandfather was willing to adopt him. His grandfather provided assistance when J.A. was placed
with his maternal grandmother, and he currently met J.A.’s needs of food, shelter, clothing,
education, and healthcare. J.A. reported he wanted to see his parents “sometimes” but never
wanted to leave his grandfather’s home. The report noted respondent’s previous failures to
comply with tasks, his inconsistent visitation, and his criminal history, including a recent history
of threats of domestic violence. The report found J.A. was emotionally attached to his
grandfather, had developed friendships in the area, and was involved in extracurricular activities.
His sense of security and familiarity was with his grandfather. The report recommended
adoption. A caseworker testified at the hearing consistent with the report. J.A.’s grandfather
similarly testified. He also stated he planned to continue contact with respondent’s side of the
family even if he adopted J.A.
¶ 16 Respondent, who was currently in custody, testified he tried to see J.A. every
other weekend at respondent’s grandmother’s house. He said he purchased gifts for J.A. and
provided testimony about a bond between them. He admitted J.A. was safe in foster care and said
he would continue to work with J.A.’s maternal grandfather. The appointed guardian ad litem
testified and recommended adoption.
-5-
¶ 17 The trial court found it was in the best interest of the child to terminate
respondent’s parental rights. The court discussed at length the statutory factors to be considered.
In particular, the court noted J.A. had spent about half his life in foster care with excellent care
provided to him. He was bonded with his maternal grandfather, had developed relationships with
others in the community, and had benefited from the stability his placement brought. The court
expressed concern as to whether respondent could safely care for a child based on his criminal
history and possession of weapons. Ultimately, the court concluded it was in J.A.’s best interest
that respondent’s parental rights be terminated.
¶ 18 Respondent filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court appointed counsel to
represent respondent.
¶ 19 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 20 Counsel moves to withdraw as appellate counsel for respondent. In his motion,
counsel states he read the record and found no issues of arguable merit. Counsel further states he
advised respondent of his opinion. Counsel supports his motion with a memorandum of law
providing a statement of facts, a discussion of potential issues, and arguments why those issues
lack arguable merit. This court advised respondent he had until August 17, 2022, to respond to
the motion, and respondent did not do so.
¶ 21 As counsel notes, the best-interest determination is the only portion of the
proceedings at issue before this court. We agree there are no viable issues relating to the initial
finding of unfitness. Respondent stipulated to the allegation in the petition, and the State
presented sufficient evidence to support its allegation.
-6-
¶ 22 Counsel submits there is nothing in the record from which one could reasonably
argue the trial court’s best-interest decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Our
review of the record and the applicable law leads us to conclude counsel is correct.
¶ 23 Once a trial court finds a parent an “unfit person,” it must consider whether
terminating that person’s parental rights serves the child’s best interest. “[A]t a best-interests
hearing, the parent’s interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship must yield to the child’s
interest in a stable, loving home life.” In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 364 (2004); see also In re
Julian K., 2012 IL App (1st) 112841, ¶ 80 (stating that once the trial court finds the parent unfit,
“all considerations, including the parent’s rights, yield to the best interests of the child”).
¶ 24 When considering whether termination of parental rights serves a child’s best
interest, the trial court must consider several factors within “the context of the child’s age and
developmental needs.” 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2020). These factors include:
“(1) the child’s physical safety and welfare; (2) the development of the child’s
identity; (3) the child’s familial, cultural[,] and religious background and ties;
(4) the child’s sense of attachments, including love, security, familiarity,
continuity of affection, and the least disruptive placement alternative; (5) the
child’s wishes and long-term goals; (6) the child’s community ties; (7) the
child’s need for permanence, including the need for stability and continuity of
relationships with parent figures and siblings; (8) the uniqueness of every family
and child; (9) the risks related to substitute care; and (10) the preferences of the
person available to care for the child.” In re Daphnie E., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1052,
1072 (2006); see also 705 ILCS 405/1-3(4.05) (West 2020).
-7-
¶ 25 A trial court’s finding that termination of parental rights is in a child’s best
interest will not be reversed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
In re Dal. D., 2017 IL App (4th) 160893, ¶ 53. The court’s decision will be found to be “against
the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or the
decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence.” In re Keyon R., 2017 IL App
(2d) 160657, ¶ 16.
¶ 26 Based on a careful review of the record, we agree with counsel there is no issue of
arguable merit with respect to the trial court’s best interest finding. The evidence established it
was in J.A.’s best interest to terminate respondent’s parental rights. The record showed J.A. was
six years old at the time of the best interest hearing. He had spent approximately one-half of his
life in substitute care and was in need of permanency. Respondent had failed to demonstrate
progress throughout the life of the case. Although not absent entirely, the record did not support
respondent’s assertion he was “incredibly involved” in J.A.’s life. The evidence further
established the maternal grandfather provided for the physical safety, welfare, and needs of J.A.
The court expressed concern respondent could not safely care for J.A. based on respondent’s past
and ongoing criminal and domestic violence history. Indeed, respondent was in custody at the
time of the hearing. Moreover, the record showed J.A. was bonded to his grandfather, integrated
into the household, and provided with love and affection. J.A. told a caseworker he wished to
stay with his grandfather and his grandfather had expressed a desire and willingness to adopt J.A.
¶ 27 Based on this evidence, the trial court found it was in the minor’s best interest to
terminate respondent’s parental rights. Accordingly, we cannot find the court’s decision to be
“unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence.” Keyon R., 2017 IL App (2d) 160657,
¶ 16.
-8-
¶ 28 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 29 After examining the record, the motion to withdraw, and the memorandum of law,
we agree with counsel this appeal presents no issue of arguable merit. Accordingly, for the
reasons stated, we grant the motion to withdraw as appellate counsel and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
¶ 30 Affirmed.
-9-