In re A.L.

2023 IL App (4th) 230069-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: June 16, 2023
• Docket: 4-23-0069
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2023 IL App (4th) 230069-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is June 16, 2023 NO. 4-23-0069 Carla Bender not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

In re A.L., a Minor ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Winnebago County Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 22JA311 v. ) Lisa H., ) Honorable Respondent-Appellant). ) Erin B. Buhl, ) Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Cavanagh and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The trial court’s findings that (1) the minor was neglected and (2) respondent was unfit or unable to care for the minor were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶2 Respondent, Lisa H. (Mother), appeals the trial court’s orders finding her

daughter, A.L. (born June 2017), a neglected minor and finding her unfit and unable to care for

A.L. We affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 A. Neglect Petition

¶5 On July 5, 2022, the State filed a petition pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of

1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2022)), alleging A.L. was neglected by Mother

because A.L. was in an environment injurious to her welfare. Specifically, the petition alleged

Mother had substance abuse issues (count I) and mental health issues (count II), which prevented her from properly parenting A.L.

¶6 B. Shelter Care Hearing

¶7 The trial court considered a statement of facts prepared by the Illinois Department

of Children and Family Services (DCFS), which asserted A.L. was brought by ambulance to a

hospital for a fever on July 1, 2022. Mother was “physically aggressive” with the ambulance

personnel, hospital staff, and law enforcement, and her behavior indicated substance abuse.

Mother was arrested for disorderly conduct and aggravated battery to a police officer and a

security officer. After Mother’s arrest, A.L. was placed in DCFS’s custody.

¶8 At the shelter care hearing, Mother waived her right to a hearing and stipulated

(1) probable cause existed to believe A.L. had been neglected, and (2) an immediate and urgent

necessity required A.L. to be placed in shelter care. The trial court entered an order placing A.L.

in the temporary custody of DCFS.

¶9 C. Adjudicatory Hearing

¶ 10 At the adjudicatory hearing, the State offered into evidence A.L.’s and Mother’s

certified medical records for the dates A.L. was hospitalized, and a DCFS “indicated packet,” to

which a general hearsay objection was made. Everything else was admitted without objection.

Rockford police officer Kristine Fabiani testified she arrived at the hospital on July 1, 2022, at

approximately 2 a.m., and she observed Mother yelling at security. Fabiani tried to calm Mother

down. According to Fabiani, Mother continued yelling and “plugged one of her nostrils and blew

the contents of her nose” onto Fabiani’s vest. Mother was subsequently arrested for blowing

mucus onto Fabiani and for an earlier incident involving a hospital security officer. Fabiani

stated A.L. was awake and observed Mother’s behavior in the treatment room. Mother’s father,

David H., testified on her behalf, stating he was not aware she had any substance abuse or mental

-2- health issues. The court took judicial notice of a prior neglect petition and adjudication order

from 2017.

¶ 11 On October 31, 2022, the State sought to amend its neglect petition to add a third

count based on Mother’s behavior at the hospital. The trial court found the amendment did not

prejudice any party, as the facts surrounding the additional count were fully litigated at the

previous hearing and the State had the right to amend their petition to conform to the proofs.

Noting the court heard “substantial testimony” regarding the incident at the hospital, and the

parties had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses presented, the court allowed the

amendment.

¶ 12 The trial court found the State proved count II, regarding Mother’s mental health

issues, and count III, based on Mother’s behavior at the hospital, by a preponderance of the

evidence. The court extensively referenced the evidence presented. The court found A.L.

neglected because her environment was injurious to her welfare.

¶ 13 D. Dispositional Hearing

¶ 14 After several continuances, the dispositional hearing began on December 12,

2022. The State offered into evidence the following: a DCFS integrated assessment (People’s

exhibit No. 1), a service plan approved October 31, 2022, and filed November 1, 2022 (People’s

exhibit No. 2), a November 18, 2022, court report (People’s exhibit No. 3), a December 9, 2022,

court report (People’s exhibit No. 4), and Mother’s mental health assessment (People’s exhibit

No. 5), which were all admitted without objection. According to the DCFS integrated

assessment, Mother had a history of alcohol “misuse,” anxiety, depression, and impulsivity. The

November 2022 report indicated Mother tested positive for alcohol and cocaine in September

2022. The mental health assessment indicated Mother met the diagnostic criteria for post-

-3- traumatic stress disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The hearing was then

continued and recommenced on January 13, 2023. The previously absent witness, Kelly Caudel

of the Youth Services Bureau, filed a court report in the interim, which was admitted without

objection. The State relied upon the information contained in the various reports.

¶ 15 David H., Mother’s father and A.L.’s foster parent, testified he did not observe

Mother behave irrationally when interacting with A.L, nor did he witness Mother under the

influence of any “substances” when visiting A.L. On cross-examination, he acknowledged this

was not the first time A.L. had been placed in his care. He believed Mother had completed all her

services.

¶ 16 Mother testified she participated in mental health counseling and two substance

abuse assessments. She admitted she tested positive for cocaine and alcohol in September 2022,

but she insisted she was only required to continue attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)

classes. Mother had switched mental health medications recently, and she felt they were helping

her by “keeping [her] head on straight, helping [her] sleep at night, reducing a lot of anxiety.”

Mother claimed she could not contact her caseworker when necessary. She acknowledged A.L.,

who was five years old at the time, had been in DCFS care “a couple of times.” She also

admitted she previously mentioned giving up her parental rights to A.L. because she was “tired

of going through this process.” During further cross-examination by the guardian ad litem,

Mother stated she did not believe the positive drug drop and did not change her AA meeting

schedule or seek any additional services afterward.

¶ 17 On January 13, 2023, the trial court entered a dispositional order finding Mother

unfit and unable to care for A.L. The court found this was A.L.’s third time in DCFS’s custody.

The court highlighted Mother’s “significant substance abuse issues involving alcohol” and her

-4- recent positive drug test for cocaine and alcohol. The court observed Mother missed multiple

drug screenings, including several in November 2022. The court also expressed concern for

Mother’s mental health issues, recognizing A.L. came into care due to Mother’s lack of mental

stability and her erratic behavior at the hospital. The court referenced medical records identifying

Mother’s presenting problems as anxiety, adjustment to trauma, impulsivity, and hyperactivity,

which resulted in the recommendation for treatment through outpatient services. Acknowledging

Mother successfully completed a group program, the court advised her, “We are well on our

way, I believe, to returning your child to your care.” The court made A.L. a ward of the court and

granted custody and guardianship to DCFS. The court set A.L.’s goal at return home within 12

months.

¶ 18 This appeal followed.

¶ 19 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 20 Pursuant to the Act, there is a two-stage process the trial court must follow prior

to making a neglected minor a ward of the court. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 18, 981 N.E.2d

336. First, the court must determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the minor is

neglected. A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 19. If the court finds the minor is neglected, the court

“determines whether it is consistent with the health, safety and best interests of the minor and the

public that the minor be made a ward of the court.” A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 21.

¶ 21 Mother argues the trial court erred in finding A.L. was neglected and finding her

unfit or unable to care for A.L. We address each contention in turn.

¶ 22 A. Neglect Adjudication

¶ 23 Neglect cases are “sui generis, and must be decided on the basis of their unique

circumstances.” In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d 441, 463, 819 N.E.2d 734, 747 (2004). “ ‘Neglect’ is

-5- defined as the failure to exercise the care that circumstances justly demand and encompasses

both willful and unintentional disregard of parental duty.” In re Kamesha J., 364 Ill. App. 3d

785, 792-93, 847 N.E.2d 621, 628 (2006). A parent has a duty to shield their child from harm.

Kamesha J., 364 Ill. App. 3d at 793. A trial court’s finding of neglect is afforded great deference

and will not be overturned unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re R.S., 382

Ill. App. 3d 453, 459, 888 N.E.2d 542, 548-49 (2008). “A finding is against the manifest weight

of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” R.S., 382 Ill. App. 3d at 459.

¶ 24 On appeal, Mother argues the trial court erred in its neglect finding because a

single incident of “erratic” behavior is insufficient to show neglect. Mother cites In re S.G., 2022

IL App (1st) 210899, 202 N.E.3d 396, and In re N.B., 191 Ill. 2d 338, 730 N.E.2d 1086 (2000), in

support of her position. We find these cases distinguishable.

¶ 25 In S.G., the appellate court considered whether a single suicide attempt was

sufficient to support a finding the respondent’s children were abused due to a substantial risk of

physical injury. S.G., 2022 IL App (1st) 210899, ¶ 36. The court noted the respondent

“immediately realized her mistake” and called 911, thereby mitigating the risk to her children.

S.G., 2022 IL App (1st) 210899, ¶ 36. The court considered the totality of the evidence and

reversed the trial court’s adjudication of abuse. S.G., 2022 IL App (1st) 210899, ¶ 37.

¶ 26 In S.G., the respondent immediately recognized her mistake and took action to

prevent risk to her children. S.G., 2022 IL App (1st) 210899, ¶ 36. While Mother here initiated

medical care for A.L., she subsequently interfered with A.L.’s treatment at every step. The trial

court specifically commented on notations made by various medical staff, who characterized

Mother’s behavior as bizarre, erratic, and aggressive. Mother was angry with the choice of

hospital for A.L.’s emergency care. Mother refused to let staff put ice packs on A.L., whose

-6- temperature was over 102 degrees at the time. Mother also refused to cooperate with medical

staff regarding A.L.’s medical history. Mother’s behavior toward the medical staff was

threatening and inhibited their ability to assess and treat A.L.

¶ 27 The respondent in N.B. had two angry outbursts at a county health department

facility, neither of which was directed at her children. There, the State failed to provide any proof

of actual harm to the children. N.B., 191 Ill. 2d at 341-42. The N.B. court reversed the neglect

finding as against the manifest weight of the evidence. N.B., 191 Ill. 2d at 353-54. The N.B. court

specifically found the respondent’s children were not affected by their mother’s outbursts. N.B.,

191 Ill. 2d at 351. Here, Mother’s behavior seriously impacted the ability of staff to provide the

medical care A.L. clearly needed. Further, her lack of cooperation prevented them from

obtaining necessary and relevant medical history and information with which to diagnose and

treat A. L. All of this caused observable emotional distress to A.L.

¶ 28 Mother argues her erratic behavior was a single incident caused by stress from a

combination of her cancer diagnosis, her concern for A.L.’s illness, her own COVID-19

diagnosis, and “likely intoxication.” Even accepting this explanation, for the sake of argument,

the evidence supporting the neglect adjudication remains. “[T]he only question to be resolved at

an adjudicatory hearing is whether or not a child is neglected, and not whether every parent is

neglectful.” Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d at 467. If Mother was concerned for A.L.’s health, interfering

with the medical staff trying to treat her was not reasonable. While Mother blames her

intoxication, Fabiani did not smell alcohol on Mother at the hospital. David H., who testified on

Mother’s behalf, minimized any concerns regarding respondent’s substance abuse issues.

Further, Mother’s intoxication, if accepted as true, would not change the court’s neglect finding.

-7- The court’s determination of neglect was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, as the

opposite conclusion is not clearly evident. R.S., 382 Ill. App. 3d at 459.

¶ 29 B. Unfitness Finding

¶ 30 Mother argues the trial court’s unfitness finding was against the manifest weight

of the evidence. We will not reverse a trial court’s ruling at a dispositional hearing unless it is

against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re J.W., 386 Ill. App. 3d 847, 856, 898 N.E.2d

803, 811 (2008). A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence when the opposite

result is clearly evident. In re Audrey B., 2015 IL App (1st) 142909, ¶ 32, 31 N.E.3d 892. Under

this standard, a reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on

matters of credibility of witnesses, weight of the evidence, or inferences drawn therefrom. In re

Parentage of W.J.B., 2016 IL App (2d) 140361, ¶ 25, 68 N.E.3d 977.

¶ 31 Mother contends the phrase “mental health issues” is too vague to establish an

injurious environment for purposes of unfitness. However, the standard for a finding of unfitness

at the dispositional stage under the Act is less stringent than the standard for such a finding under

the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(p) (West 2022)) for purposes of terminating parental rights.

In re A.R., 2022 IL App (3d) 210346, ¶ 17. Accordingly, the court need only find Mother “unfit”

under the ordinary meaning of the term. A.R., 2022 IL App (3d) 210346, ¶ 17. We note most of

Mother’s arguments directed against the dispositional order are repackaged arguments she used

to challenge the neglect adjudication. The trial court is tasked with determining A.L.’s safety,

health, and best interests—Mother’s arguments do not meaningfully address the court’s findings

in that regard.

¶ 32 The five exhibits the trial court relied on (People’s exhibit Nos. 1 through 5)

showed, inter alia, this incident was the third time A.L. had been taken into protective custody

-8- by DCFS. A.L. was only five years old at the time of the dispositional hearing. Mother’s alcohol

use and positive tests for cocaine and alcohol occurred in September 2022, after A.L. was taken

into protective custody. Mother also missed several drug screenings. The reports revealed

Mother’s mental health issues existed before and continued beyond the July 2022 hospital

incident. The court specifically discussed Mother’s mental health assessment (People’s exhibit

No. 5) related to anxiety, adjustments to trauma, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. The evidence

showed Mother met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, which interfered with her

ability to parent. The evidence also called into question Mother’s stability and fitness to care for

A.L. Based on our review of the record, the court’s determination was not against the manifest

weight of the evidence, as we cannot say the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. Audrey B.,

2015 IL App (1st) 142909, ¶ 32.

¶ 33 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 34 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 35 Affirmed.

-9-