In re A.S.

2024 IL App (4th) 240451-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: June 24, 2024
• Docket: 4-24-0451
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2024 IL App (4th) 240451-U This Order was filed under FILED June 24, 2024 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NO. 4-24-0451 Carla Bender not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1). OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

In re A.S., a Minor ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Peoria County Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 23JA188 v. ) Rajanae M., ) Honorable Respondent-Appellant). ) David A. Brown, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Cavanagh and Justice Zenoff concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), the appellate court granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

¶2 In January 2024, the trial court entered an order adjudicating the minor, A.S. (born

September 2023), neglected and a dispositional order finding respondent, Rajanae M., unfit for

some reason other than financial circumstances alone to care for, protect, train, or discipline the

minor. Respondent appealed, and counsel was appointed to represent her. Appellate counsel has

now filed a motion for leave to withdraw with a supporting brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), on the basis that this case presents no potentially meritorious

issues for review. We agree, grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the court’s

judgment.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 A. Procedural History

¶5 On September 18, 2023, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship,

alleging A.S. was a neglected minor pursuant to section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of

1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2022)). The State alleged A.S.’s

environment was injurious to his welfare because respondent was hospitalized on September 3,

2023, due to suicidal and homicidal ideation, including statements that she wanted to kill her

unborn child. A.S. was subsequently born on September 12, 2023. In an interview conducted on

September 12, 2023, respondent asserted her previous statements were misunderstood because

she was having a bad day and thought she was in labor. Respondent also denied having any

previous psychiatric diagnosis, taking any psychiatric medication, or previously attempting to

harm herself or others.

¶6 The State’s petition alleged the September 3, 2023, hospital admission records

indicated emergency medical technicians (EMTs) observed respondent screaming, stating she

was going to kill her baby, and striking her boyfriend in the face during an argument. The

petition further alleged respondent’s medical records indicated she had prior hospital admissions,

including for (1) panic attacks and suicidal ideation with plans to drink bleach in December

2022, (2) waving a knife toward police officers and EMTs in May 2020, and (3) suicidal and

homicidal ideation involving cutting herself and planning to shoot her father in August 2019.

¶7 The trial court conducted a shelter care hearing on September 19, 2023. The court

appointed counsel for respondent and placed temporary custody of the minor with the Illinois

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), with the right to place. The court’s order

states respondent did not object to the minor being placed in shelter care.

-2- ¶8 On October 16, 2023, respondent filed an answer to the State’s petition for

adjudication of wardship. Respondent stipulated that the State would call witnesses to support

the allegation that A.S. was born on September 12, 2023, and the allegations concerning her

statements during the interview that same day. Respondent denied the State’s allegations that she

was hospitalized on September 3, 2023, due to suicidal and homicidal ideation and that EMTs

observed her strike her boyfriend in the face. With respect to the State’s allegations regarding her

hospital admission records from September 3, 2023, and her medical records from prior hospital

admissions, respondent answered that she “lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the

allegations *** but demands strict proof thereof.” (Emphasis in original.) Respondent further

answered she “does not recall signing any release that would have allowed the State to access her

confidential medical records and, if such information was not obtained legally, would ask to

strike” the allegations related to any previous hospital admission.

¶9 B. Adjudicatory Hearing

¶ 10 At the adjudicatory hearing on January 9, 2024, Peoria police officer Robert Allen

testified he responded to a call and observed respondent screaming and walking away from

emergency responders. He observed respondent screaming loudly and telling the emergency

responders to get away from her. Allen testified it was a “really prolonged call,” with respondent

screaming and eventually walking into an apartment. Allen described the screaming as “almost

maniacal,” and he observed respondent appeared to be pregnant.

¶ 11 When he was unable to communicate with respondent, Allen called Emergency

Response Services because they assist with people experiencing a mental health crisis.

Respondent was in the bathroom of the apartment when Emergency Response Services arrived,

still screaming short, one-word statements. Respondent eventually came out of the bathroom,

-3- stated she did not care and would kill the baby, sat down on the couch, and waved her arms

frantically while still screaming. While waving her arms, respondent hit her boyfriend in the

head. Allen and another officer secured respondent’s arms to prevent anyone else from being hit

and escorted respondent to an ambulance. Allen followed the ambulance to the hospital, where

respondent was taken to the labor and delivery floor.

¶ 12 Following Allen’s testimony, the State rested and moved for a judgment based on

the pleadings and the testimony. Respondent declined to present any evidence and maintained the

State failed to prove the allegations of the petition.

¶ 13 In reviewing the pleadings, the trial court noted respondent, in her answer,

demanded strict proof of the State’s allegations regarding her hospital admission in this case and

its allegations regarding her previous hospital admissions. The court asserted the demand for

strict proof is not a proper pleading. Respondent was required to either admit or deny the

allegations. If an admission or denial was not possible, respondent was required to submit an

affidavit stating the reason she could not admit or deny the allegations. Respondent did not

submit an affidavit explaining her failure to admit or deny the allegations. Therefore, the court

concluded the pleadings resulted in an admission of those allegations.

¶ 14 However, the trial court then found the State’s allegations regarding respondent’s

previous hospital admissions were not proven because they were not supported by evidence

presented by the State. The court found the remainder of the petition was proven by a

preponderance of the evidence based on Officer Allen’s testimony and respondent’s partial

stipulation. Accordingly, the court ruled the State had proven the material allegations of its

petition and found the minor neglected due to an environment injurious to his welfare.

¶ 15 C. Dispositional Hearing

-4- ¶ 16 The case proceeded immediately to a dispositional hearing. The trial court

asserted it had reviewed a dispositional hearing report and an integrated assessment prepared by

the caseworker. The dispositional hearing report indicated respondent had been diagnosed with

cannabis use disorder and the caseworker observed a strong odor of marijuana in the home when

she met with respondent. The report also detailed an extensive history of domestic violence in

respondent’s relationship with the minor’s father and noted respondent had not consistently

attended visits with the minor. The report concluded respondent had not demonstrated the ability

to meet minimum parenting standards and required additional time to engage in and complete

services prior to returning the minor to her care. The dispositional hearing report recommended

the minor remain in DCFS’s care given the parents’ current inability to provide a safe and stable

home environment.

¶ 17 The integrated assessment provided that respondent was 19 years old and the

minor was her only child. She had a history of mental health issues, with several hospitalizations,

had been prescribed psychotropic medication, had a history of substance abuse, and had a history

of domestic violence in her relationship with the minor’s father, resulting in numerous police

reports. Respondent did not consistently attend scheduled visits with the minor. The integrated

assessment recommended respondent complete a psychological assessment, individual

counseling, domestic violence education, parenting education, and submit to random drug

screenings.

¶ 18 The trial court then asked Children’s Home caseworker Carma Kimber if she had

any additions or corrections to the reports. Kimber explained that she was recently assigned to

the case. When she first met with respondent, Kimber noticed respondent had a black eye.

-5- Respondent asserted the minor’s father hit her the night before, causing the injury. The parties

did not present any further evidence at the dispositional hearing.

¶ 19 Following the parties’ arguments, the trial court found respondent unfit and that it

was in the minor’s best interest to be made a ward of the court. The guardianship administrator

of DCFS was named the minor’s guardian, with the right to place. The court ordered respondent

to complete a psychological evaluation and to follow all recommendations, successfully

complete counseling, a domestic violence course, and parenting classes, submit to random drug

screenings, and attend visits as scheduled with the minor.

¶ 20 D. Motion To Reconsider

¶ 21 On February 2, 2024, respondent filed a motion to reconsider and vacate the trial

court’s adjudicatory and dispositional orders. Respondent asserted, inter alia, that the court erred

by ruling her answer, which stated she lacked sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny but

demanded strict proof of certain allegations, resulted in an admission of those allegations. Thus,

respondent claimed the court erred by finding she admitted allegations regarding her hospital

admission records in this case and her previous hospital admissions. Respondent argued that

without those admissions, the State failed to prove the minor was neglected by a preponderance

of the evidence. Accordingly, respondent asked the court to vacate its adjudicatory and

dispositional orders.

¶ 22 The trial court determined it correctly found respondent’s answer resulted in the

admission of the contested allegations. The court further explained that it relied on the other

evidence presented at the hearing, in addition to respondent’s answer to the petition, in finding

her unfit. The court, therefore, denied respondent’s motion to reconsider and vacate its prior

orders.

-6- ¶ 23 This appeal followed.

¶ 24 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 25 The trial court appointed counsel to represent respondent on appeal. Respondent’s

appellate counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw in compliance with Anders. See In re J.P.,

2016 IL App (1st) 161518, ¶ 8, 65 N.E.3d 1009 (finding Anders applies when counsel seeks to

withdraw from representation on direct appeal from orders affecting parental rights under the

Juvenile Court Act). Under the applicable procedure, appellate counsel’s request to withdraw

must “ ‘be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support

the appeal.’ ” In re S.M., 314 Ill. App. 3d 682, 685, 732 N.E.2d 140, 143 (2000) (quoting Anders,

386 U.S. at 744). Appellate counsel must “(a) sketch the argument in support of the issues that

could conceivably be raised on appeal, and then (b) explain why he believes the arguments are

frivolous.” Id.

¶ 26 In her supporting brief, appellate counsel contends there are no potentially

meritorious issues for review in this case. Counsel identifies the following as potential issues for

review: (1) whether the trial court erred by treating respondent’s answer, which claimed a lack of

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny allegations in the State’s petition, as an admission of those

allegations; (2) whether the court’s decision adjudicating A.S. neglected due to an injurious

environment was against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (3) whether the court’s

dispositional order making the minor a ward of the court was against the manifest weight of the

evidence. Appellate counsel has explained in her brief the reasons each of the potential

arguments would be frivolous.

¶ 27 Appellate counsel has provided proof of service of her motion and supporting

brief on respondent, and this court granted respondent the opportunity to file a response.

-7- Respondent has not filed a response. Because we agree that the appeal of this case presents no

potentially meritorious issues for review, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 28 A. Respondent’s Answer to the Petition

¶ 29 1. The Applicable Law

¶ 30 Section 2-610(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) provides that “[e]very

answer and subsequent pleading shall contain an explicit admission or denial of each allegation

of the pleading to which it relates.” 735 ILCS 5/2-610(a) (West 2022). With limited exceptions

not applicable here, “[e]very allegation *** not explicitly denied is admitted, unless the party

states in his or her pleading that he or she has no knowledge thereof sufficient to form a belief,

and attaches an affidavit of the truth of the statement of want of knowledge.” Id. § 2-610(b). The

failure to explicitly deny a specific allegation in a civil complaint will be considered a judicial

admission and will dispense with the necessity to submit proof on the issue. Parkway Bank &

Trust Co. v. Korzen, 2013 IL App (1st) 130380, ¶ 37, 2 N.E.3d 1052.

¶ 31 2. This Case

¶ 32 Here, the State alleged, in pertinent part, that respondent’s hospital admission

records indicated EMTs observed her screaming, stating she was going to kill her baby, and

striking her boyfriend in the face during an argument. The State’s petition separately alleged

respondent’s medical records indicated she had prior hospital admissions involving panic attacks,

suicidal ideation, and homicidal ideation. In answering those allegations, respondent asserted she

“lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations *** but demands strict proof

thereof.” (Emphasis in original.) However, respondent did not attach an affidavit to establish the

truth of her statement that she lacked sufficient knowledge of the allegations, as required by

-8- section 2-610(b) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-610(b) (West 2022)). Respondent’s failure to attach

a lack of knowledge affidavit resulted in her admission of the allegations at issue. See Parkway

Bank & Trust Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 130380, ¶ 38 (stating defendants admitted an allegation in

plaintiff’s complaint by stating they lacked knowledge sufficient to answer without including the

required lack of knowledge affidavit).

¶ 33 Additionally, as explained below, the testimony presented by the State at the

adjudicatory hearing was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of neglect, even without

considering any admissions by respondent to the allegations of the petition. Accordingly, the

court’s decision on the petition for adjudication of wardship would not have been affected even if

respondent’s answer had resulted in a denial of the relevant allegations.

¶ 34 B. Adjudication of Neglect

¶ 35 1. The Applicable Law

¶ 36 The Juvenile Court Act sets forth a two-step process for deciding whether a minor

should be removed from the parents’ custody and made a ward of the court. In re A.P., 2012 IL

113875, ¶ 18, 981 N.E.2d 336. The first step is the adjudicatory hearing, where the trial court

considers only whether the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent. Id. ¶ 19 (quoting 705 ILCS

405/2-18(1) (West 2010)). If the court determines a minor is abused, neglected, or dependent, it

proceeds to the second step, the dispositional hearing. Id. ¶ 21 (citing 705 ILCS 405/2-21(2)

(West 2010)).

¶ 37 Section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act defines a neglected minor to include

“any minor under 18 years of age *** whose environment is injurious to the minor’s welfare.”

705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2022). An “injurious environment” generally includes the breach

of a parent’s duty to provide his or her children with a safe and nurturing shelter. In re Arthur H.,

-9- 212 Ill. 2d 441, 463, 819 N.E.2d 734, 747 (2004). Neglect cases are “sui generis, and must be

decided on the basis of their unique circumstances.” Id.

¶ 38 The State bears the burden of proving allegations of neglect by a preponderance

of the evidence. In re Z.L., 2021 IL 126931, ¶ 61, 190 N.E.3d 193. A trial court’s finding of

neglect will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 17. A finding of neglect is against the manifest weight of the evidence if

the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. Id.

¶ 39 2. This Case

¶ 40 Based on this record, we agree with appellate counsel that no claim of arguable

merit can be raised challenging the trial court’s adjudication of neglect. The relevant facts

supporting the court’s decision were supplied by Officer Allen’s testimony. He testified that he

observed respondent screaming “almost maniacal[ly]” and walking away from emergency

responders and into an apartment. Respondent entered a bathroom in the apartment and remained

there, screaming short, one-word statements. When she eventually came out of the bathroom,

respondent stated she did not care and would kill the baby, sat down on the couch, and waved her

arms frantically while still screaming. She hit her boyfriend in the head as she was waving her

arms. Respondent was then restrained and taken to the hospital by ambulance.

¶ 41 Officer Allen’s testimony was sufficient for the trial court to conclude the minor

was subjected to an environment injurious to his welfare. The State’s allegations about the

hospital admission records related to this incident were essentially cumulative of Allen’s

testimony that respondent was screaming, stated she was going to kill her baby, and struck her

boyfriend in the head. Based on this evidence, the court found the minor neglected. The opposite

- 10 - conclusion is not clearly evident. We conclude any argument that the court’s adjudication of

neglect was against the manifest weight of the evidence would be frivolous.

¶ 42 C. Dispositional Order

¶ 43 1. The Applicable Law

¶ 44 At the dispositional hearing, the trial court determines whether the best interests

of the minor and the public require making the minor a ward of the court. 705 ILCS 405/2-22(1)

(West 2022). In considering wardship, the court must decide whether the parent is unfit, unable,

or unwilling, for reasons other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train, or

discipline the child, and whether the health, safety, and best interest of the child will be

jeopardized if the child remains in the parent’s custody. Id. § 2-27(1). A trial court’s dispositional

order will not be overturned on appeal unless its findings of fact are against the manifest weight

of the evidence or it abused its discretion by selecting an inappropriate dispositional order. In re

A.S., 2014 IL App (3d) 130163, ¶ 21, 9 N.E.3d 615.

¶ 45 2. This Case

¶ 46 The trial court’s finding that respondent was unfit, unable, or unwilling to care for

the minor is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence presented at the

dispositional hearing indicated respondent had a history of mental health issues, substance abuse

issues, and domestic violence. The dispositional hearing report indicated respondent required

additional time to complete services addressing those issues before returning the minor to her

care. The report stated respondent had not established an ability to meet minimum parenting

standards and was currently unable to provide a safe and stable home environment. Those

findings are supported by the evidence presented in this case, including Officer Allen’s

testimony. Based on the evidence, the court found respondent unfit and that it was in the minor’s

- 11 - best interest to be made a ward of the court. We agree with appellate counsel any argument that

the court’s dispositional order was against the manifest weight of the evidence would be

frivolous.

¶ 47 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 48 For the reasons stated, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and

¶ 49 Affirmed.

- 12 -