In re T.J.

2023 IL App (4th) 230256-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: August 1, 2023
• Docket: 4-23-0256
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2023 IL App (4th) 230256-U FILED This Order was filed under August 1, 2023 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is NOS. 4-23-0256, 4-23-0257, 4-23-0258 cons. Carla Bender not precedent except in the 4th District Appellate limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

In re T.J, G.J., and O.J., Minors ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of the State of Illinois, ) Adams County Petitioner-Appellee, ) Nos. 20JA69 ) 20JA70 v. ) 20JA71 Amanda J., ) Respondent-Appellant). ) Honorable ) John C. Wooleyhan, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Harris and Knecht concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The trial court’s finding respondent was unfit under section 1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m) (West 2022))) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and the court did not err by admitting service plans into evidence.

¶2 Respondent, Amanda J, is the mother of T.J. (born May 2013), G.J. (born June

2016), and O.J. (born August 2020). In February 2023, the trial court found respondent was an

unfit parent under the Adoption Act (see 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i), (ii) (West 2022)) and that

termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. (The children’s

father is deceased and not a party to the appeal.)

¶3 Respondent appeals, arguing, among other things, that the trial court’s fitness

findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence—specifically, the findings that she failed (1) to correct the conditions that were the basis for the children’s removal and (2) to make

reasonable progress toward the return of the children in any nine-month period following the

adjudication of neglect of the children. Respondent does not appeal the court’s finding that

termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interests. We disagree and affirm.

¶4 I. BACKGROUND

¶5 A. The Petition for Adjudication of Wardship

¶6 In August 2020, the State filed petitions for adjudication of wardship for each

minor child, alleging respondent neglected the children under section 2-3(1)(b) of the Juvenile

Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b) (West 2020)) because the children’s environment

was injurious to their welfare due to (1) respondent’s substance abuse and (2) exposure to

domestic violence. That same day, the trial court entered an order placing temporary custody of

the minors with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).

¶7 In January 2021, following a hearing, the trial court entered an adjudicatory order

finding the children neglected. In March 2021, the court conducted a dispositional hearing and

found respondent unfit and unwilling for reasons other than financial circumstances alone to care

for, protect, train, educate, supervise, or discipline the minors because of “lack of

efforts/progress.” The court also made the children wards of the court and placed custody and

guardianship of the children with the guardianship administrator of DCFS.

¶8 B. The Petitions for Termination of Parental Rights

¶9 In May 2022, the State filed petitions for termination of parental rights, alleging

respondent was unfit under section 1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(i), (ii)

(West 2022)) because she failed to make (1) reasonable efforts to correct the conditions which

were the basis for the removal of the children and (2) reasonable progress toward the return of

-2- the children within any nine-month time period after they were adjudicated neglected—namely,

(a) January 29, 2021, to October 21, 2021 and (b) October 21, 2021, to July 21, 2022.

¶ 10 C. The Termination Proceedings

¶ 11 In January 2023 and February 2023, the trial court conducted hearings on the

State’s termination petitions. Respondent did not appear at the January hearing date.

¶ 12 1. The Fitness Portion of the Termination Proceedings

¶ 13 a. Jerilyn Niewohner

¶ 14 Jerilyn Niewohner, a retired caseworker at DCFS, testified she oversaw the case

from August 2020 until she retired in September 2021. Niewohner testified that she created a

service plan for respondent starting in August 2021 through February 2022. However, she later

clarified the plan covered the preceding six months and included tasks yet to be completed

through February 2022.

¶ 15 The plan showed tasks with start dates in August 2020 and showed those were

evaluated in February 2021. It then listed the tasks continuing until August 2021. Niewohner

testified service plans were created in the normal course of DCFS business and correctly

indicated the progress of the parents during the period covered by the plan. The plan was

admitted into evidence as the State’s exhibit No. 2 without objection.

¶ 16 Niewohner testified the service plan required respondent to engage in the

following tasks: (1) cooperation, (2) parental education, (3) employment, (4) mental health, and

(5) substance abuse. Regarding cooperation, Niewohner rated respondent unsatisfactory because

she had not cooperated with obtaining either a substance abuse assessment or a mental health

assessment. Respondent also had ongoing parent education services, but it took six to nine

months before she began to do anything in her plan. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory on her

-3- employment task because, although she said she was working for her landlord, she never

provided proof of employment.

¶ 17 Niewohner rated respondent unsatisfactory on the mental health task because

respondent took nine months to obtain an assessment. Niewohner testified as follows about that

task:

“[A]fter nine months, she finally went to [a provider] to do an assessment. She did

not report any kind of mental health issues or concerns, however, when we

completed an integrated assessment at the beginning of the case, she reported

some stress and some—I can’t recall what that integrated assessment—but they

recommended mental health services. So it was like she was telling them

something different, and then she did an assessment and told them something

different, so it was rated unsatisfactory ***.”

Niewohner stated there was no recommendation for follow-up treatment in the mental health

assessment and admitted she did not have evidence respondent was suffering from mental health

issues. However, DCFS recommended respondent get another assessment somewhere else.

¶ 18 Niewohner rated respondent unsatisfactory on her substance abuse task because

she again took nine months to obtain an assessment and did not report to the assessor that she

had previously tested positive for amphetamines. Niewohner further stated:

“She reported to the *** screener that she’s never used illegal drugs and she

doesn’t understand why DCFS has reported that she had positive tests. So

basically, she said she does not need any services and she’s never used illegal

drugs.

-4- Also, as a part of the substance assessment part in the service plan she was

required to do drug drops randomly. Sometimes they were scheduled. That was

unsatisfactory. She missed several. I have never had a positive drug screen on her,

but I would say she missed at least 50 percent of the time.”

Notes in the service plan stated respondent “failed to cooperate with requested random drug

screens except one [in November 2020], which was negative for any illegal substances.

[Respondent] failed 12 requested drug screens.” When asked if respondent displayed visible

signs of using substances, Niewohner testified it was “hard to say.” She noted respondent was

very thin and had unaddressed medical issues. Respondent was requested to seek medical care

and allow DCFS to talk to the doctor. However, respondent never provided the name of a doctor

or any medical releases. Respondent was rated satisfactory on her domestic violence, suitable

housing, and visitation tasks. Visitation was supervised and concerns related to visitation were

addressed quickly.

¶ 19 b. Angie Danzeisen

¶ 20 Angie Danzeisen testified she was assigned as the caseworker on the matter in

September 2021 after Niewohner retired. She remained the caseworker until June 2022.

Danzeisen prepared and evaluated a service plan dated February 16, 2022, that “covered the prior

six months up and to this point.” The plan was prepared in the ordinary course of DCFS business

and accurately recorded the progress of the parents during the period covered by the plan. The

plan showed the same tasks started in August 2020 as shown in State’s exhibit No. 2, listed a

target completion date of August 2022, and was evaluated in February 2022.

-5- ¶ 21 Danzeisen rated respondent unsatisfactory on her cooperation task because she

did not cooperate with recommended services, failed to meet with a caseworker monthly, and

failed to attend scheduled team meetings. Respondent provided limited proof of employment.

¶ 22 Regarding the mental health and substance abuse tasks, respondent again was

rated unsatisfactory because she was not truthful in the initial assessment and did not complete

the requested second assessment. Respondent also did not follow up with treatment or complete

all required drug screens. Danzeisen testified respondent tested negative on the drug screens that

she did complete. Respondent told Danzeisen she received services but failed to provide releases

to substantiate her claims.

¶ 23 Respondent’s visitation had been suspended because their father would show up

when he was not supposed to be there, causing conflicts with the children. Danzeisen stated

“visitation became more traumatizing than helpful for the kids. Therefore, it was suspended

through the court.” Respondent and the children’s grandmother also tried to reach out to the

children on social media and went to their school when they were not permitted to do so.

¶ 24 Danzeisen rated respondent satisfactory on her domestic violence and parenting

education tasks, but Danzeisen explained that completing those services was insufficient to

recommend return of the children to respondent. Danzeisen was unable to view respondent’s

home because when she went there, both announced and unannounced, respondent did not open

the door. Respondent also failed to respond to calls and texts.

¶ 25 c. Alison Ketsenburg

¶ 26 Alison Ketsenburg supervised respondent’s case for DCFS. She testified she was

familiar with events occurring in the case after February 2022. When asked questions concerning

-6- whether respondent had made any further progress or advanced in her tasks, Ketsenburg often

generally stated, “[N]ot that I’m aware of.”

¶ 27 d. The Trial Court’s Findings

¶ 28 The trial court found the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that

respondent neither (1) made reasonable efforts nor (2) reasonable progress, as alleged in the

petition. The court noted there was no evidence respondent sought to have visitation reinstated

after it was suspended, and she failed to engage in all services recommended by the service

plans. The court further noted that respondent did not allow or arrange for a caseworker to visit

her home for one six-month period, visitations were never unsupervised, and visitations were

suspended “because they were doing more harm to the minors than good.”

¶ 29 2. The Best-Interest Portion of the Termination Proceedings

¶ 30 In February 2023, the trial court conducted the best-interest portion of the

termination proceedings. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found the State proved by a

preponderance of the evidence it was in the best interests of the children to terminate parental

rights and changed the goals of their cases to adoption or guardianship.

¶ 31 This appeal followed.

¶ 32 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 33 Respondent appeals, arguing, among other things, that the trial court’s fitness

findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence—specifically, the findings that she

failed (1) to correct the conditions that were the basis for the children’s removal and (2) to make

reasonable progress towards the return of the children in any nine-month period following the

adjudication of neglect of the children. Respondent does not appeal the court’s finding that

termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interests. We disagree and affirm.

-7- ¶ 34 A. The Trial Court’s Fitness Determinations

¶ 35 Here, the trial court found respondent both failed (1) to make reasonable efforts to

correct the conditions that were the basis for the children’s removal and (2) to make reasonable

progress toward the return of the children in any nine-month period following the adjudication of

neglect of the children. Because we conclude that the record supports the court’s findings that

respondent did not make reasonable progress towards the return of the minors during either nine-

month period—namely, (1) January 2021 through October 2021 and (2) October 2021 through

July 2022—we address only that ground for unfitness. See In re Y.F., 2023 IL App (1st) 221216,

¶ 47 (“A parent’s rights may be terminated if even a single alleged ground for unfitness is

supported by clear and convincing evidence.”).

¶ 36 1. The Applicable Law and the Standard of Review

¶ 37 a. The Law Regarding Reasonable Progress

¶ 38 The State must prove unfitness as defined in section 1(D) of the Adoption Act

(750 ILCS 50/1(D) (West 2022)) by clear and convincing evidence. In re N.G., 2018 IL 121939,

¶ 28, 115 N.E.3d 102. Section 1(D)(m)(ii) of the Adoption Act defines an unfit parent as a parent

who fails to make “reasonable progress toward the return of the child” during any nine-month

period following an adjudication of neglect or abuse. 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(m)(ii) (West 2022). The

Illinois Supreme Court has held that “[t]he benchmark for measuring a parent’s reasonable

progress under section 1(D)(m) of the Adoption Act encompasses compliance with the service

plans and court’s directives in light of the condition that gave rise to the removal of the child and

other conditions which later become known that would prevent the court from returning custody

of the child to the parent.” In re K.P., 2020 IL App (3d) 190709, ¶ 36, 157 N.E.3d

493 (citing In re C.N., 196 Ill. 2d 181, 216-17, 752 N.E.2d 1030, 1050 (2001)).

-8- ¶ 39 Likewise, this court has defined “reasonable progress” as follows:

“ ‘Reasonable progress’ is an objective standard which exists when the court,

based on the evidence before it, can conclude that the progress being made by a

parent to comply with directives given for the return of the child is sufficiently

demonstrable and of such a quality that the court, in the near future, will be able

to order the child returned to parental custody. The court will be able to order the

child returned to parental custody in the near future because, at that point, the

parent will have fully complied with the directives previously given to the parent

in order to regain custody of the child.” (Emphases in original.) In re L.L.S., 218

Ill. App. 3d 444, 461, 577 N.E.2d 1375, 1387 (1991).

See also K.P., 2020 IL App (3d) 190709, ¶ 36.

¶ 40 b. The Standard of Review

¶ 41 A determination of parental unfitness involves factual findings and credibility

determinations that the trial court is in the best position to make because “the trial court’s

opportunity to view and evaluate the parties *** is superior.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

In re M.I., 2016 IL 120232, ¶ 21, 77 N.E.3d 69. “A trial court’s finding of parental unfitness will

not be reversed unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” In re Ta. T., 2021 IL

App (4th) 200658, ¶ 48, 187 N.E.3d 763. “A trial court’s decision 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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re

N.B., 2019 IL App (2d) 180797, ¶ 30, 125 N.E.3d 444.

¶ 42 2. This Case

-9- ¶ 43 The record shows that during the nine-month periods, (1) caseworkers

consistently rated respondent unsatisfactory on multiple tasks required by her service plan,

(2) respondent failed to perform all requested drug tests or obtain proper mental health and

substance abuse assessments, and (3) respondent did not allow caseworkers to view her

residence. Further, as the trial court noted multiple times, none of the evidence presented even

suggested that respondent made any efforts to resume visitation with the children after it was

suspended in April 2022, and all the visitations prior to that date were supervised.

¶ 44 Respondent contends that the evidence was vague or unreliable—for example,

respondent points to (1) Niewohner’s testimony that she thought respondent signed up for

services and could not recall whether respondent had mental health issues and (2) Ketsenburg’s

answering questions with the statement “not that I’m aware of.” However, the trial court was in

the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses’ testimony, and we will not reweigh

that evidence on appeal. See In re adoption of P.J.H., 2019 IL App (5th) 190089, ¶ 11, 143

N.E.3d 805.

¶ 45 Because the record shows that respondent failed to (1) comply with the tasks in

her service plans or (2) make efforts to resume visitation with her children, the trial court

reasonably found that the children were unlikely to be returned to respondent’s custody in the

near future. Accordingly, we conclude that the court’s findings that respondent failed to make

reasonable progress during any nine-month period toward the return of the children were not

against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 46 B. Forfeited Arguments

¶ 47 Respondent also argues that the trial court’s unfitness findings were against the

manifest weight of the evidence because (1) they were based on improperly admitted service

- 10 - plans, which lacked foundation for their admission into evidence, and (2) the State failed to

prove the nine-month periods at issue. However, because respondent neither made

contemporaneous objections to (1) the admission of the service plans into evidence nor (2) the

use of the nine-month periods of January 2021 through October 2021 and October 2021 through

July 2022, she forfeited those arguments, and we need not address them on appeal. See In re

M.P., 2020 IL App (4th) 190814, ¶ 44, 155 N.E.3d 577 (“A [respondent] forfeits an issue for

purposes of appellate review by failing to object to the alleged error or raise it in a written

posttrial motion.”).

¶ 48 III. CONCLUSION

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

¶ 50 Affirmed.

- 11 -