In re L.A.

2025 IL App (4th) 241529-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: April 24, 2025
• Docket: 4-24-1529
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2025 IL App (4th) 241529-U FILED This Order was filed under April 24, 2025 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is Carla Bender not precedent except in the NOS. 4-24-1529, 4-24-1530, 4-24-1531 cons. limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

In re L.A., Jax. A., and Jay. A., Minors ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Knox County Petitioner-Appellee, ) Nos. 24JA41 v. ) 24JA42 Mariah A., ) 24JA43 Respondent-Appellant). ) ) Honorable ) Curtis S. Lane, ) Judge Presiding

JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Knecht and DeArmond concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court’s dispositional order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶2 Respondent, Mariah A., appeals from the trial court’s dispositional order making

her minor children, L.A. (born May 2022), Jax. A. (born November 2020), and Jay. A. (born

December 2011), wards of the court. (The minors’ fathers—Jeremiah W., the father of Jay. A.,

and Jon S., the father of Jax. A. and L.A.—are not parties to this appeal.) Respondent argues the

court’s order is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 A. Petition for Adjudication of Wardship

¶5 On July 2, 2024, the special prosecutor filed a juvenile petition for the adjudication of wardship, alleging the minors were neglected 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 petition alleged the

minors’ environment was injurious to their welfare because respondent and Jeremiah, who had an

ongoing relationship and coparented all the minors, had a history of domestic violence and

frequently fought in front of the minors. Specifically, in October 2023, respondent drove to

Jeremiah’s home, left the minors in her vehicle, entered Jeremiah’s house, and attacked him.

Jeremiah filed a petition for an order of protection, which was granted. Respondent was arrested

for violating the order of protection in December 2023. In March 2024, respondent called 911 after

Jeremiah came to her home and battered her in front of Jay. A. and L.A. When the police

responded, respondent and Jay. A. were in the front yard. Respondent was visibly distraught.

Further, the petition alleged that although respondent agreed to complete intact services in October

2023 and was compliant with doing so, respondent continued to engage in acts of domestic

violence in front of the minors.

¶6 On July 30, 2024, an amended juvenile petition for the adjudication of wardship

was filed, adding two more volatile incidents between respondent and Jeremiah. Specifically, the

petition alleged on July 25 and 26, 2024, respondent went to Jeremiah’s house and refused to leave.

On one of those dates, she yelled at Jeremiah and scratched his arm, leaving marks on his forearm.

The minors were present during both incidents.

¶7 On the same day the amended petition was filed, Jeremiah filed a petition for an

emergency order of protection. The petition alleged respondent committed four acts of violence or

harassment against Jeremiah. First, on July 25, 2024, respondent arrived at Jeremiah’s home while

he was gone and banged on the door to be let in. When she could not get inside, she started yelling,

cursing, and honking her car’s horn. Neighbors called the police, who cited respondent for

-2- trespassing and resisting arrest. Second, on July 26, 2024, Jeremiah heard a commotion coming

from outside his home, went outside, and saw respondent yelling at and chasing Jay. A.

Respondent eventually forced herself into Jeremiah’s house, and she threw various things while

Jeremiah kept Jax. A. and L.A. safe. After Jax. A. and L.A. were left safely on a couch in the living

room, respondent attacked Jeremiah, scratching and hitting him several times before hitting herself

on the head with a tool. The police were called, but respondent left before they arrived. Third, on

July 28, 2024, respondent demanded Jeremiah retract his statements about the July 26, 2024, and

October 2023 incidents, the latter of which resulted in criminal proceedings against respondent.

Fourth, on July 29, 2024, respondent e-mailed Jeremiah, asking him why his attorney contacted

the special prosecutor about the July 25 and 26, 2024, incidents. Attached to the e-mail was the

attorney’s letter. Soon thereafter, Jay. A. texted Jeremiah screenshots of the letter, and Jeremiah

instructed Jay. A. to block respondent and not read the attorney’s letter. The trial court granted

Jeremiah’s emergency order of protection.

¶8 Around this same time, the end of July 2024, the special prosecutor filed a shelter

care petition to have the minors temporarily placed with the Illinois Department of Children and

Family Services (DCFS). The trial court granted the motion.

¶9 In September 2024, respondent stipulated to the amended juvenile petition for the

adjudication of wardship in its entirety. The trial court found the minors neglected because their

environment was injurious to their welfare.

¶ 10 Thereafter, respondent and Jeremiah signed an agreed mutual restraining order,

which the trial court approved on October 31, 2024.

¶ 11 B. Dispositional Hearing

¶ 12 On that same date, the trial court conducted a dispositional hearing. The court

-3- admitted into evidence documents showing respondent participated in various counseling and

parenting classes. Further, the court also admitted reports prepared by the Court Appointed Special

Advocates (CASA), the Center for Youth and Family Services (CYFS), and DCFS. The CASA

report, which was prepared on October 15, 2024, provided, “[r]easonable efforts were made to

keep the family intact, however despite services, the violence did not stop.” Thus, the CASA

recommended that guardianship remain with DCFS, with the right to place.

¶ 13 The CYFS report, which was prepared on October 23, 2024, revealed, on June 27,

2024, Jeremiah went to respondent’s home for a custody exchange of Jay. A. Respondent

attempted to climb through the window of Jeremiah’s car and take his and his passenger’s phones.

Respondent scratched the passenger and yelled to Jay. A. that Jeremiah was recording the incident

and causing a scene. Subsequently, the police attempted to arrest respondent for domestic violence,

but she refused to exit her home. The police spoke to Jay. A., who told them “[respondent] gets

unusually angry approximately every other week and he does not feel safe living with her during

these occasions.” The report from CYFS noted that this incident happened “[d]espite a prior history

of past domestic violence issues and law enforcement/DCFS intervention with [respondent] and

Jeremiah.” Thus, although respondent was “relatively cooperative and compliant” with all her

services, saying on several occasions she did not believe she needed to complete anything else,

CYFS recommended that DCFS be granted guardianship of the minors, with a goal of them

returning home within 12 months.

¶ 14 The DCFS family service plan, which was dated July 27, 2024, noted that

respondent was involved with several domestic violence incidents since intact services began in

October 2023. DCFS recommended that it retain guardianship of the minors, with the goal the

minors return home in 12 months, as “[t]he parents need time to mitigate the issues that brought

-4- the children into [its] care.”

¶ 15 1. Video Evidence

¶ 16 In addition to the reports, the trial court considered two videos—one of the July 25,

2024, incident and the other of the July 26, 2024, incident—both of which the court viewed

previously. The July 25, 2024, video showed respondent standing outside Jeremiah’s house. A

police officer was talking to respondent, who was telling the officer she needed to retrieve various

items from inside the house. Respondent began arguing with the officer, who told respondent he

was arresting her. Although respondent initially complied with the officer’s orders to turn around

so he could handcuff her, she soon resisted arrest, lying face down at one point while the officer

attempted to handcuff her.

¶ 17 The July 26, 2024, video recorded the inside of Jeremiah’s house. The video was

taken a great distance from the area where several people were talking. Respondent and Jeremiah

were two of the people in the home. A child was heard shrieking while respondent and Jeremiah

were arguing. The child touched his grandmother, and respondent repeatedly yelled at the child

not to do that. The child continued to scream and cry. At one point, Jeremiah, who sounded

distraught, called the police, crying out in pain and asking the police to please hurry. The trial court

found this video “extremely disturbing,” noting it was “very, very disturbed by all of this.” A

photograph of Jeremiah’s injuries admitted during the proceedings showed three red scratches,

approximately six inches in length, running down the inside of Jeremiah’s left forearm.

¶ 18 2. Testimony of Trinity Heddon

¶ 19 After the trial court considered the documentary evidence, the State called Trinity

Heddon as a witness. Heddon, a foster care caseworker for CYFS, became involved with the case

the first week of August 2024. Since that time, there had been no incidents of domestic violence

-5- between respondent and Jeremiah. Heddon believed this was attributable to (1) the agreed

restraining order between respondent and Jeremiah and (2) the elimination of many of

respondent’s stressors, such as the minors being removed from her and Jeremiah’s care.

¶ 20 According to Heddon, respondent, who lived in a nice home, (1) received food

stamps, rental assistance, and child support; (2) was proactive with the minors’ health care;

(3) attended all supervised visits; (4) asked for additional visits; (5) watched the children during

visits; (6) ensured they were safe; and (7) played with them in an age-appropriate way. She also

provided clothes and school supplies for the minors while they were in the care of DCFS.

¶ 21 Respondent completed many services, including mental health treatment, and felt

“that she’s done enough to where she doesn’t think she needs to do any more” to obtain custody

of the minors. Heddon disagreed. Heddon, who thought respondent would complete additional

services if they were recommended, believed respondent needed a parenting capacity evaluation

to assess her understanding of the minors. She also believed respondent and Jay. A. needed family

counseling, as respondent’s interactions with Jay. A. were more limited than with the younger

children and were sometimes inappropriate. For example, Heddon testified about a time Jay. A.

asked to speak to the guardian ad litem (GAL), but when he did, he told the GAL he could not

remember what he was supposed to say. Although Heddon could not determine that respondent

instigated Jay. A.’s meeting with the GAL in any way, Heddon implied respondent may have

talked to Jay. A. about what he needed to say to the GAL so she could obtain custody of the minors.

¶ 22 Heddon was troubled about the minors returning to respondent’s care and being

subjected to more acts of domestic violence. She believed three months was not long enough to

eliminate whatever caused the acts of domestic violence between respondent and Jeremiah, noting

that respondent, who had made positive progress in therapy, had not completed treatment for

-6- domestic violence and anger management. Heddon recommended that guardianship of the minors

remain with DCFS.

¶ 23 3. Trial Court’s Ruling

¶ 24 The trial court entered a dispositional order finding respondent unfit and ordering

the minors to be made wards of the court. The court determined guardianship would remain with

DCFS, with the right to consent to treatment and placement and with the goal of the minors

returning home in 12 months. The court found the best interests of the minors required the minors

to live outside of respondent’s house until she could correct the conditions that caused the minors

to be removed from her home.

¶ 25 This appeal followed.

¶ 26 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 27 On appeal, respondent argues the trial court’s dispositional order making the minors

wards of the court was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Juvenile Court Act

provides a two-step process for the court to decide whether a minor should become a ward of the

court. In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 18. The first step is the adjudicatory hearing on the State’s

petition for adjudication of wardship. At this stage, the court must consider whether the minor is

abused, neglected, or dependent. 705 ILCS 405/2-18(1) (West Supp. 2023). If the trial court makes

a finding that the minor is abused, neglected, or dependent, the court then determines at a

dispositional hearing whether (1) the parents are “unfit or *** unable, for some reason other than

financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minor or are unwilling to

do so” and (2) “the health, safety, and best interest of the minor will be jeopardized if the minor

remains in the custody of the minors’ parents.” 705 ILCS 405/2-27(1)(d) (West Supp. 2023). When

a minor is removed from his or her parents’ custody and made a ward of the court, the court

-7- determines the proper placement. Id. § 2-22(1).

¶ 28 At the outset, we note respondent stipulated to the amended juvenile petition for

the adjudication of wardship, which alleged the minors were neglected. The trial court, pursuant

to this stipulation, adjudicated the minors neglected. Respondent raises no issue on appeal

concerning this stipulation. Accordingly, we do not consider whether the court erred in

adjudicating the minors neglected.

¶ 29 Respondent does, however, take issue with the dispositional order. She argues the

trial court’s order making the minors wards of the court was against the manifest weight of the

evidence. A trial court’s dispositional order will be reversed only if the court’s findings of fact are

against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re J.W., 386 Ill. App. 3d 847, 856 (2008). A trial

court’s finding is 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 presented.

In re D.F., 201 Ill. 2d 476, 498 (2002).

¶ 30 In this case, the proceedings were initiated because the minors were neglected. The

allegation of neglect was based on respondent and Jeremiah engaging in acts of domestic violence

in front of the minors. These acts of violence continued not only after October 2023—when

respondent attacked Jeremiah, was ordered to complete intact services, and was later arrested for

violating an order of protection Jeremiah obtained—but also after July 2, 2024—when the special

prosecutor filed the initial juvenile petition for the adjudication of wardship. One of the incidents

that occurred after July 2, 2024, resulted in Jay. A. telling the police respondent gets angry

frequently and when she does, he does not feel safe living with her. The CASA, CYFS, and DCFS

reports all concluded, because of the continued acts of domestic violence committed in front of the

minors, the minors’ best interests would be served by making them wards of the court, with the

-8- goal of returning them home within 12 months. Heddon agreed with these recommendations,

noting specifically that she was concerned with the minors returning to respondent’s custody when,

in the three months since the children were removed from her care, respondent had not completed

treatment for domestic violence or anger management.

¶ 31 According to respondent, because she provided for her children in various ways

and completed numerous services, her children should be returned to her care. We disagree.

Although respondent had completed many services, provided for her children in numerous ways,

and interacted with them in mostly appropriate ways, she had failed to rectify the problem that led

to the minors being removed from her custody in the first place. While it is true that respondent

did not engage in acts of domestic violence in front of the minors for three months before the

dispositional hearing, the reasons for that appear to have little, if anything, to do with respondent

successfully completing treatment for her domestic violence or anger management issues. Rather,

it appears to be due to the fact neither respondent nor Jeremiah had custody of the minors—and,

thus, as Heddon suggested, respondent’s stressors had been minimized.

¶ 32 For those reasons, we conclude the trial court’s dispositional order was not against

the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 33 III. CONCLUSION

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

¶ 35 Affirmed.

-9-