In re Hezekiell v. Shameria J.

2025 IL App (5th) 250465-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: 5-25-0465
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2025 IL App (5th) 250465-U NOTICE Decision filed 10/20/25. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-25-0465 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to not precedent except in the the filing of a Petition for IN THE limited circumstances allowed Rehearing or the disposition of under Rule 23(e)(1). the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

In re HEZEKIELL J., a Minor ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Champaign County. ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 25-JA-10 ) Shameria J., ) Honorable ) Robert E. Jacobson, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE SHOLAR delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Cates and Hackett concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: We affirm the circuit court’s orders finding the minor neglected and making him a ward of the court, where the evidence supported the court’s findings.

¶2 Respondent, Shameria J., appeals the circuit court’s orders finding her son, Hezekiell J.,

neglected, and awarding his custody and guardianship to the Department of Children and Family

Services (DCFS). Her appointed appellate counsel concludes that there is no reasonably

meritorious argument that the court erred in either respect. Accordingly, he filed a motion to

withdraw, along with a supporting memorandum. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Counsel notified respondent of his motion, and this court provided her ample opportunity to

respond. However, she has not done so. After considering the record on appeal, counsel’s motion,

1 and the supporting memorandum, we agree that this appeal presents no arguably meritorious

issues. We therefore grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm the circuit court’s orders.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 On January 31, 2025, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) took

protective custody of Hezekiell J. following his birth on January 24, 2025. On February 3, the State

filed a petition for adjudication of wardship, alleging Hezekiell neglected, pursuant to section 2-

3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2022)) by reason of

being in an environment injurious to his welfare because his mother, respondent Shameria J., failed

to correct the conditions that resulted in an adjudication of her unfitness to parent the minor’s half-

sibling, Hezekih J. 1, and because, while residing with his mother, Hezekiell’s environment

exposed him to the effects of her mental illness.

¶5 At a February 3, 2025, temporary custody hearing, the court found probable cause to

believe that Hezekiell was neglected. The court observed that respondent had been found unfit and

unable to parent another child, Hezekih. She had longstanding mental health issues but was

resistant to getting treatment. The court found that respondent needed to engage in services to

address how her mental health issues “impact her ability to safely parent her child.” The court

noted that respondent completed some services in Hezekih’s case and generally had positive visits.

However, she had

“not begun parenting coaching, has only recently started counseling (two sessions

thus far), has not yet completed a psychological evaluation (although it has been

scheduled), and has not yet completed a psychiatric evaluation (yet to be scheduled). The

On October 17, 2024, the circuit court of Champaign County entered a dispositional order in case 1

No. 24-JA-59, finding Hezekih J., who was born in June 2018, neglected and that Shameria J. was unfit and unable to parent him. The dispositional order was affirmed by this court in 5-24-1218 on April 2, 2025. 2 services that have only just begun or have yet to take place are necessary for [her] to

demonstrate *** she had addressed her mental health issues such that she can safely parent

a child.”

¶6 The court convened an adjudicatory hearing on May 1, 2025. Tracy Conroy, a clinical

behavioral therapist for the Center for Youth and Family Solutions (CYFS), testified that DCFS

referred respondent to her. Conroy and respondent held a video session on January 14, 2025. The

purpose of the meeting was to conduct an assessment to establish a diagnosis and treatment plan.

This typically takes six to seven one-hour sessions to complete, provided the client participates

appropriately.

¶7 Following the assessment, however, respondent did not have any treatment goals or

objectives “due to lack of information.” Conroy explained that respondent was initially cooperative

but then stopped cooperating. She accused Conroy of having a “hidden agenda,” and said that she

did not trust her. Conroy’s “diagnosis” was “unspecified trauma due to lack of information” from

respondent. The only traumas respondent specifically identified were previous “domestic

violence” and some anxiety over her children being “stolen” by DCFS. She denied having

depression or anger issues. Respondent participated in six or seven weekly visits between January

14, 2025, and the end of February 2025. She was discharged from therapy due to a lack of

engagement. Conroy’s discharge summary, which the court admitted into evidence, recommended

that respondent seek mental health treatment “when she was ready to process her emotional

regulation and trauma.”

¶8 Conroy attempted numerous times to get respondent to re-engage in therapy. However,

respondent answered with accusations, such as Conroy having a “hidden agenda.” During sessions

3 that respondent did attend, she expressed discontent at being “disrespected” by DCFS, CYFS, and

Addus HomeCare, the visitation supervisor.

¶9 Sam Mosley, a DCFS investigator, testified at the adjudicatory hearing. He was assigned

on January 24, 2025, to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect against Hezekiell J. He spoke

with respondent at Carle Hospital. Initially, she would not discuss the case with him, so he went

to the neonatal intensive care unit to see Hezekiell. When he returned, respondent told him that

she had an open DCFS case involving Hezekih. She said that her caseworker was Denise Perry.

She said that parenting classes in that case were on hold “due to the caseworker,” and a psychiatric

evaluation on November 11, 2024, had been “normal.”

¶ 10 Perry also testified at the adjudicatory hearing. She testified that she was the caseworker in

Hezekih’s case. Respondent’s services in that case included parenting classes, parenting coaching,

therapy, a psychiatric assessment, a psychological evaluation, and toxicology screens.

¶ 11 As of February 2025 respondent cooperated with services. She began therapy with Conroy,

finished parenting classes and toxicology screens, and had a psychological evaluation scheduled.

However, Conroy did not feel that respondent was cooperating with the agency. Respondent “put

up an argument *** towards everything.” She “eventually did it, but it was always an argument

first.”

¶ 12 Respondent underwent a psychological evaluation on February 26, but Perry had yet to

receive a report. Respondent also needed a psychiatric evaluation; however, the initial referral for

a psychiatric assessment expired and had to be renewed. However, the appointment had not yet

been made. As of February 2025 Perry was not close to returning Hezekih J. to respondent because

she had not completed services.

4 ¶ 13 Perry last observed a visit between respondent and Hezekih in June 2024 and a visit

between respondent and Hezekiell in February 2025. Visits generally were “pretty good.” At a

February visit with Hezekiell, however, respondent “made small comments about foster parents.”

She made “unconstructive” comments about the foster parents at other visits as well. When Perry

spoke to her about this, she “kind of just brush[ed] it off.”

¶ 14 Respondent testified on her own behalf. She testified that, in Hezekih’s case, she completed

parenting classes, underwent a psychological evaluation, and started individual counseling with

Conroy. She had not yet begun parenting coaching because DCFS had put it “on hold.” She

regularly exercised visitation with Hezekih until, in March, she asked for a new visitation

supervisor. Until then, all of her visits with him went well. Respondent explained that visitation

was suspended after she had a confrontation on March 26 with the Addus visitation supervisor

about the type of formula she was providing for Hezekiell.

¶ 15 On cross-examination, respondent testified that, after the March 26 confrontation, she told

the visitation supervisor that she was no longer allowed to transport Hezekiell to visitations. When

the same worker returned the following week, respondent called the police.

¶ 16 At the conclusion of the testimony, the court found that Hezekiell J. was neglected as

alleged in both counts of the petition. With respect to count I, the court noted that respondent had

a number of services to complete to correct the conditions that caused her to lose custody of

Hezekih but completed only two. Moreover, the result of one of those—the psychological

evaluation—was not yet known. With respect to count II, the court found that respondent had

“long-standing mental health issues and a resistance to consistent treatment for those issues.”

5 ¶ 17 The court observed that respondent had been uncooperative with DCFS, believing that she

could “pick and choose what she wants to do in this case, how she wants to do it, [and] on what

terms she’s willing to interact with people.” The court continued:

“And she’s had difficulty with the caseworker, Ms. Perry. She’s had difficulty with

an Addus worker. She’s had difficulties with the foster parent. She’s had difficulties with

the counselor, Ms. Conroy, and in [respondent’s] estimation all of the difficulties with all

of those various people are it’s—it’s their problem, and—and obviously there’s a common

denominator with all the difficulties and all of those various people that [respondent] has

had trouble with and she’s that common denominator.”

¶ 18 The court noted that respondent was unsuccessfully discharged from therapy, and her

visitation was “put on hold” in both cases because she disagreed with how visits were being

conducted. The court concluded that the conditions that led to the prior adjudication of parental

unfitness had not been corrected. The court further found that, notwithstanding the absence of a

diagnosis of mental illness, the evidence supported a conclusion that respondent had a mental

illness that made her unable to regulate her emotions and that she exposed Hezekiell to the effects

thereof. A written adjudicatory order was entered on May 1, 2025, finding Hezekiell to be a

neglected minor.

¶ 19 In anticipation of a May 29, 2025, hearing, DCFS filed a dispositional report. Respondent

reported experiencing temporary homelessness as of May 8, 2025, and requested assistance finding

housing on May 23, 2025. Her mental health history included diagnoses of depression and

attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and suicidal and homicidal statements in 2019. The report

contained a psychological evaluation , according to which she was diagnosed with post-traumatic

6 stress disorder, adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, borderline

personality disorder, and narcissistic personality disorder.

¶ 20 The dispositional report noted that Hezekiell was with foster parents in Danville. Despite

several health problems at birth, he recovered with care and treatment. The report noted that

Hezekiell was doing well. DCFS recommended that it be awarded custody and guardianship of

Hezekiell.

¶ 21 At the dispositional hearing, the court admitted the Champaign County Sheriff’s incident

report regarding the conflict between respondent and the Addus visitation supervisor, Laura

Hoelscher. The report noted that Hoelscher arrived to transport respondent to a visit with

Hezekiell. Respondent felt that Hoelscher disrespected her and asked her to leave. Per policy,

Hoelscher was required to wait 15 minutes or call her supervisor. Respondent called the police.

When the supervisor could not be reached, Hoelscher waited the required 15 minutes and left. For

purposes of the dispositional hearing, the court also admitted a letter written by respondent in

March 2025 with her complaints about DCFS.

¶ 22 The court heard arguments and recommendations from the State and respondent’s counsel.

Additionally, the guardian ad litem recommended that respondent be found unfit and the minor be

made a ward of the court. The court found it in Hezekiell’s best interests to be made a ward of the

court and adjudged neglected. It also found respondent unfit and unable to care for him.

¶ 23 The court noted respondent’s “significant and longstanding mental health issues—and a

resistance to consistent treatment for said issues—that currently prevent her from safely caring for

the minor.” In announcing its ruling, the court explained that the psychological evaluation led to

the conclusion that respondent’s perception of reality was very different from most people’s, which

the court attributed to her failure to correct the conditions that led to her adjudication of unfitness

7 in Hezekih’s case. In that case, she had left Hezekih unattended for a long time, later giving varying

explanations for her absence. In this case, in respondent’s dealings with her service providers,

“everything is the other person’s fault.” She also lacked “honest engagement in the assessment

procedure and denial of existing problems,” which prevented her from “accessing resources and

support that may help her make additional progress individually as a parent. *** She presents with

symptoms and then ultimately diagnoses of borderline personality disorder, PTSD, and narcissistic

personality disorder.” Respondent timely appealed.

¶ 24 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 25 Respondent’s appointed appellate counsel concludes that there is no reasonably

meritorious argument that the circuit court erred in finding that Hezekiell J. neglected, finding that

respondent was unfit and unable to care for him, and in making him its ward. We agree.

¶ 26 Courts employ a two-step process to decide whether a child should be removed from his

parents’ custody and made a ward of the court due to abuse or neglect. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875,

¶ 18. Step one is the adjudicatory hearing on the petition for adjudication of wardship. Id. ¶ 19. At

this proceeding, the State must prove the allegations of neglect by a preponderance of the evidence.

In re Arthur H., 212 Ill. 2d 441, 463-64 (2004). In other words, the State must establish that the

allegations of neglect are more probably true than not. Id. at 464. On review, a circuit court’s

finding of neglect will not be reversed unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id.

¶ 27 Here, the evidence shows that respondent completed only two of the services required in

the case involving Hezikih: a parenting class and a psychological evaluation. However, the results

of the latter had not been received. She had not undergone a psychiatric assessment, which the

court observed was critical to identifying the specific nature of her mental health issues.

Respondent remained uncooperative with DCFS and with her service providers, was

8 unsuccessfully discharged from therapy, and, because of her attitude toward the visitation

supervisor, had her visitation rights suspended. Thus, the evidence supported the court’s finding

that she failed to correct the conditions that led to Hezekih’s removal from her care.

¶ 28 The court also found Hezekiell neglected in that residing with respondent exposed him to

the effects of her mental illness. We need not consider this additional ground, however. The State

need prove only one ground for neglect, and thus “when the circuit court has found a minor

neglected on several grounds, we may affirm if any of the circuit court’s bases of neglect may be

upheld.” In re Faith B., 216 Ill. 2d 1, 14 (2005).

¶ 29 Counsel further contends that there is no reasonably meritorious issue that the court erred

in making Hezekiell its ward. Pursuant to section 2-27 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, a minor

may be adjudged a ward of the court and custody taken away from the parents if the court finds

that the parents are either unfit or unable, for some reason other than financial circumstances alone,

to care for, protect, train, or discipline a minor or are unwilling to do so. In re April C., 326 Ill.

App. 3d 245, 256-57 (2001) (citing 705 ILCS 405/2-27(1) (West 1998)). The standard of proof for

a finding of parental unfitness that does not result in a complete termination of all parental rights

is a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 257. On review, the court’s decision will be reversed

only if its factual findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence or if the court committed

an abuse of discretion by selecting an inappropriate dispositional order. Id.

¶ 30 Here, the court reasonably found that respondent’s mental health issues, and her inability

to take responsibility or meaningfully seek treatment for them, meant that Hezekiell’s best interests

required that he be removed from her care. The court noted that, despite respondent having been

diagnosed with several conditions, she resisted receiving treatment, instead blaming others for

9 creating the problems. Based on the record before us, we agree that there is no reasonably

meritorious argument that the court erred.

¶ 31 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 32 For the foregoing reasons, we grant appellate counsel leave to withdraw and affirm the

orders of the circuit court of Champaign County.

¶ 33 Motion granted; orders affirmed.