In re M.B.

2021 IL App (4th) 210182-U

Opinion

NOTICE 2021 IL App (4th) 210182-U FILED This Order was filed under August 10, 2021 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is Carla Bender not precedent except in the NO. 4-21-0182 4th District Appellate limited circumstances allowed Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

In re M.B., a Minor ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Vermilion County Petitioner-Appellee, ) No. 19JA106 v. ) Angela N., ) Honorable Respondent-Appellant). ) Thomas M. O’Shaughnessy, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Harris and Steigmann concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The circuit court’s neglect finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶2 In September 2019, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship as to

M.B. (born in July 2017), the minor child of respondent, Angela N., asserting the minor child

was neglected. After a November 2020 adjudicatory hearing, the Vermilion County circuit court

found the minor child was neglected as alleged in two counts of the State’s petition. After a

March 2021 dispositional hearing, the court (1) found respondent unfit, unwilling, and unable to

care for the minor child; (2) made the minor child a ward of the court; and (3) placed the minor

child’s custody and guardianship with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).

¶3 Respondent appeals, contending the circuit court erred by finding the minor child

was neglected. We affirm. ¶4 I. BACKGROUND

¶5 The minor child’s father is Jerry B., who is not a party to this appeal. The State’s

September 2019 petition alleged M.B. was neglected pursuant to section 2-3(1)(a) of the Juvenile

Court Act of 1987 (Juvenile Court Act) (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(a) (West Supp. 2019)), in that

M.B. was not receiving the proper or necessary support or education as required by the law, or

medical or other remedial care recognized under State law as necessary for her well-being (count

IV). It also contended M.B. was neglected under section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act

(705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West Supp. 2019)), in that her environment was injurious to her

welfare due to (1) respondent’s substance abuse (count I), (2) Jerry’s substance abuse (count II),

(3) Jerry’s and/or respondent’s criminal activity (count III), and (4) Jerry’s and/or respondent’s

failure to engage in and complete substance abuse services and other services in order to remedy

the conditions that required their other minor children to go into care in Vermilion County case

No. 14-JA-133 (count V).

¶6 On November 20, 2020, the circuit court held the adjudicatory hearing. The State

presented the testimony of (1) Stefanie Verando, a Vermilion County probation officer;

(2) Nathan Huckstadt, a Vermilion County probation officer; (3) Jill Miller, the caseworker in

case No. 14-JA-133; (4) Kristine Givens, a DCFS investigator; and (5) Jerald Feingold, a DCFS

investigator. At the State’s request, the circuit court took judicial notice of the orders and

findings in case No. 14-JA-133. Respondent and Jerry did not present any evidence. The

guardian ad litem presented Jerry’s testimony. The evidence relevant to the issues on appeal

follows.

¶7 Huckstadt testified part of his duties as a probation officer was administering drug

tests. On July 2, 2020, he administered a drug test to Jerry, and Jerry tested positive for cocaine

-2- and methamphetamine. Huckstadt had never been Jerry’s probation officer.

¶8 Miller testified she was the caseworker in a prior juvenile case involving two

other minor children, Jerry, and respondent. In that case, Jerry’s recommended services included

substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, individual counseling, and a psychological

evaluation. Jerry never completed a psychological evaluation, was unsuccessfully discharged

from individual counseling, was unsuccessfully discharged from parenting classes, and failed to

do intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment. After residential substance abuse treatment,

Jerry tested positive for cocaine in March 2016. To Miller’s knowledge, Jerry did not resume

substance abuse treatment and was never drug free. Additionally, Miller testified Jerry threw a

table at her during a child and family team meeting. Jerry believed DCFS took the children to

sell them and Miller was involved in the sale.

¶9 As to respondent, Miller testified the recommended services for respondent

included substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, and individual counseling. Respondent

did attend some counseling sessions and parenting classes but was unsuccessfully discharged

from both. Respondent attended residential treatment for substance abuse but did not follow

through with the recommended services once she was released. After respondent’s release from

treatment, she tested positive twice for cocaine. Miller was unaware of respondent reengaging in

substance abuse treatment after her positive drug tests.

¶ 10 Miller further testified the two minor children in the prior case could not be safely

returned to respondent or Jerry in 2016. In her opinion, respondent and Jerry both needed

significant services before either one of them could safely parent, and both of them never

completed any services. Miller admitted she did not have any contact with respondent or Jerry

after the termination of their parental rights in June 2016.

-3- ¶ 11 Givens testified she received a hotline call on August 1, 2019, alleging respondent

and Jerry were living in a stolen vehicle and using methamphetamine and cocaine. As part of her

investigation, Givens spoke to Jerry on the telephone on September 20, 2019. She asked Jerry to

complete a drug screen the following day. Jerry did not complete the drug screen. Givens

further testified Jerry denied being homeless and could provide documentation of that. During a

subsequent telephone call on September 23, 2019, Jerry informed Givens he had completed the

drug screen somewhere else and would get her the documentation. Jerry did not provide the

documentation of the drug test or his residence. Givens described Jerry’s demeanor during the

second telephone call as combative and erratic and noted he had trouble concentrating and

staying on task. Givens testified Jerry seemed impaired. During previous conversations with

Jerry, he was cooperative. Before this case, Jerry had not been indicated on any reports

involving M.B. Respondent had been indicated earlier in 2019 for “risk of harm, environment

injurious to the health and welfare to her child, [M.B.], based on her substance abuse.”

Respondent and Jerry’s other two children had been found neglected based on an environment

injurious to their welfare due to respondent’s substance abuse.

¶ 12 When Givens had made an indicated report earlier in 2019 based on respondent’s

substance abuse, Jerry was living with his mother. Givens had never administered a drug test to

Jerry. Givens also testified a person living in a hotel is not considered homeless. Additionally,

Givens testified M.B. appeared healthy when she was taken into care.

¶ 13 Feingold testified he was the parallel investigator for this matter. He spoke to

Jerry on September 11, 2019, at the Champaign Police Department. Respondent had been

arrested that night, and Jerry stated he had done nothing wrong. Jerry noted he and M.B. were

living with his mother, and respondent was living with her family. Feingold later testified Jerry

-4- stated they had been staying at a hotel in Paris, Illinois. Feingold testified Jerry did not appear to

be intoxicated when Jerry spoke with him. Feingold took protective custody of M.B. that night,

and she appeared to be healthy. Feingold noted both respondent and M.B. were listed as missing

and endangered persons in the Illinois State Police system. The taking of protective custody had

already been authorized before Feingold went to the police station.

¶ 14 Additionally, Feingold spoke with respondent the day after her arrest. She

explained the vehicle was not stolen and “things were messed up” with Enterprise Rent-A-Car in

Danville, Illinois. Respondent denied using drugs. She also told Feingold she and Jerry had

been living in a motel in Danville and had recently moved to a hotel in Paris, Illinois.

Respondent said she could provide receipts for the hotel and payments on the car.

¶ 15 After the State rested, both Jerry and respondent made motions for a directed

finding. In response, the State withdrew count III. The court dismissed count IV and denied the

motion as to the other counts.

¶ 16 Jerry testified and admitted he used illegal substances when M.B. was not in his

presence. Jerry acknowledged, if he were to be drug tested after the adjudicatory hearing, it

would be “dirty.” Jerry had used methamphetamine two days before the hearing. He also

admitted he stated at the July 2, 2020, hearing, a drug test on that day would be dirty. Jerry

further testified he had not seen M.B. for a year and a half. As to the prior case, Jerry testified he

had done a psychological evaluation the “first time around.” He also had completed both

inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment. Last, Jerry admitted he had a substance

abuse issue and was “trying to get it back in remission.”

¶ 17 After hearing the parties’ arguments, the circuit court found the State had proved

the allegations in counts II and V but not count I. The court noted the bases for its finding were

-5- the evidence of both parents’ (1) failure to complete services in case No. 14-JA-133,

(2) continued need for treatment, and (3) longstanding addiction issues.

¶ 18 On March 25, 2021, the circuit court held the dispositional hearing. The State

presented the testimony of Amy Fellers, the caseworker for this case. The State recommended

M.B. be made a ward of the court, DCFS be granted guardianship, and the permanency goal be

substitute care. The guardian ad litem concurred with the State’s recommendation. Jerry

asserted M.B. should be returned home immediately. On March 26, 2021, the court entered a

written dispositional order (1) finding respondent unfit, unwilling, and unable to care for the

minor child, (2) making the minor child a ward of the court, and (3) placing the minor child’s

custody and guardianship with DCFS. The court entered a permanency goal of return home in

12 months.

¶ 19 On April 1, 2021, respondent filed a timely notice of appeal in sufficient

compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303 (eff. July 1, 2017). See Ill. S. Ct. R. 660(b)

(eff. Oct. 1, 2001) (providing the rules governing civil cases govern appeals from final

judgments in all proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act, except for delinquency cases). Thus,

this court has jurisdiction of respondent’s appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(1)

(eff. Mar. 8, 2016). See In re Austin W., 214 Ill. 2d 31, 43-44, 823 N.E.2d 572, 580 (2005),

abrogated on other grounds by In re M.M., 2016 IL 119932, ¶ 31, 72 N.E.3d 260 (noting

“dispositional orders are generally considered ‘final’ for the purposes of appeal”).

¶ 20 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 21 The Juvenile Court Act provides a two-step process the circuit court must utilize

to decide whether the minor child should become a ward of the court. In re A.P., 2012 IL

113875, ¶ 18, 981 N.E.2d 336. Step one of the process is the adjudicatory hearing, at which the

-6- court considers only whether the minor child is abused, neglected, or dependent. See 705 ILCS

405/2-18(1) (West 2018); A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 19. If the circuit court determines the minor

child is abused, neglected, or dependent at the adjudicatory hearing, then the court holds a

dispositional hearing to determine whether it is consistent with the health, safety, and best

interests of the minor child and the public for the minor child to be made a ward of the court.

A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 21.

¶ 22 Here, respondent challenges only the first step. The State bears the burden of

proving a neglect allegation by a preponderance of the evidence, which means it must show the

allegations are more probably true than not. See A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 17. The State must

only prove a single ground of abuse, neglect, or dependency to move the wardship proceedings

to the second step. See In re Faith B., 216 Ill. 2d 1, 14, 832 N.E.2d 152, 159 (2005) (noting the

State need only prove one ground for neglect and thus this court may affirm if any of the circuit

court’s bases for a neglect finding are upheld). On review, this court will not reverse a circuit

court’s neglect or abuse finding unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. See

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

opposite conclusion is clearly evident.” A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 17.

¶ 23 In this case, the circuit court found the minor child was neglected under section

2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West Supp. 2019)), which provides

a neglected minor is “any minor under 18 years of age *** whose environment is injurious to his

or her welfare.” Our supreme court has explained the terms “neglect” and “injurious” as follows:

“Generally, neglect is defined as the failure to exercise the care that circumstances

justly demand. [Citation.] This does not mean, however, that the term neglect is

limited to a narrow definition. [Citation.] As this court has long held, neglect

-7- encompasses wilful as well as unintentional disregard of duty. It is not a term of

fixed and measured meaning. It takes its content always from specific

circumstances, and its meaning varies as the context of surrounding circumstances

changes. [Citation.] Similarly, the term injurious environment has been

recognized by our courts as an amorphous concept that cannot be defined with

particularity. [Citation.] Generally, however, the term injurious environment has

been interpreted to include the breach of a parent’s duty to ensure a safe and

nurturing shelter for his or her children. [Citation.]” (Internal quotation marks

omitted.) A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 22.

¶ 24 Respondent first asserts the State failed to prove DCFS had probable cause to

remove M.B. from respondent’s custody from the start. Respondent’s argument challenges the

temporary custody order, in which the circuit court found probable cause existed for the filing of

the wardship petition. When a subsequent adjudication of wardship is supported by adequate

evidence, an appeal of the findings made during the temporary custody hearing is generally

moot. In re Edward T., 343 Ill. App. 3d 778, 792, 799 N.E.2d 304, 315 (2003). As explained

below, the State presented adequate evidence to support the adjudication and disposition in this

case. Thus, any contention of error regarding the temporary custody hearing and written order is

moot. Edward T., 343 Ill. App. 3d at 792, 799 N.E.2d at 316.

¶ 25 Respondent further argues the State did not show the minor child’s environment

was injurious to her welfare. She asserts the State failed to prove she (1) did not complete

services in the previous case, (2) refused to participate in services in this case, and (3) continued

to have a substance abuse problem that created an environment injurious to the minor child’s

welfare. The State contends the circuit court did not err in finding M.B. neglected.

-8- ¶ 26 As to her alleged substance abuse problem, respondent contends the circuit court

erred by finding M.B. neglected as a result of her substance abuse. However, the court found the

State failed to prove that allegation. What the court did find was M.B. was neglected based on

an injurious environment due to Jerry’s substance abuse. Respondent does not assert that finding

was against the manifest weight of the evidence. After reviewing the evidence, we find the

evidence was sufficient to support the court’s neglect finding based on Jerry’s substance abuse.

While isolated incidents of a parent’s drug usage do not necessarily pose a danger to the minor

child, “obviously an ongoing pattern of substance abuse can create an injurious environment.”

In re Z.Z., 312 Ill. App. 3d 800, 805, 727 N.E.2d 667, 671 (2000). In the previous juvenile case,

Jerry had failed to successfully complete intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment and

tested positive for cocaine in 2016 after he had done inpatient substance abuse treatment. In July

2020, Jerry tested positive for both cocaine and methamphetamine. Jerry himself admitted he

used methamphetamine two days before the adjudicatory hearing and used it before the previous

hearing as well. Jerry further acknowledged he had a substance abuse issue and was “trying to

get it back in remission.” Thus, we find the State’s evidence was sufficient to show Jerry had a

continuing substance abuse problem. Moreover, the fact M.B. appeared healthy when she was

taken into custody does not preclude a finding of abuse. Givens testified Jerry seemed impaired

during her second telephone conversation with him. She described Jerry’s demeanor as

combative and erratic and noted he had trouble concentrating and staying on task. Moreover, the

circuit court was not required to believe Jerry’s self-serving testimony he only used illegal

substances when M.B. was not around.

¶ 27 Accordingly, we find the circuit court’s conclusion M.B. was neglected based on

an injurious environment resulting from Jerry’s substance abuse was not against the manifest

-9- weight of the evidence. Since the State need only prove a single ground of abuse, neglect, or

dependency to move the wardship proceedings to the second step, we do not address

respondent’s arguments about the other ground for the neglect finding. See Faith B., 216 Ill. 2d

at 14, 832 N.E.2d at 159.

¶ 28 As to the dispositional order, respondent does not raise any claims of error. We

note the State’s evidence was sufficient to support the circuit court’s dispositional order. The

evidence showed respondent and Jerry had not visited M.B. while she was in care and had not

even completed an integrated assessment. The caseworker had been unable to refer both parents

for services due to difficulties with communication and their refusal to sign consent forms.

While respondent and Jerry blamed the agency for their failures, the court found their failures

were due to respondent’s and Jerry’s conduct and not the agency’s actions.

¶ 29 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 30 For the reasons stated, we affirm the Vermilion County circuit court’s judgment.

¶ 31 Affirmed.

- 10 -