In re A. M.

February 6, 1998

No. 1-96-3464

In re A.M., and V.M., minors. ) Appeal from the
(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Circuit Court of
) Cook County.
Petitioners-Appellees, )
)
v. )
)
MARVIN M., ) Honorable
) Marsha D. Hayes,
Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HOURIHANE delivered the opinion of the court:
Following a hearing, the circuit court found respondent
Marvin M. to be an unfit parent and terminated his parental
rights to his two minor children, A.M. and V.M. Respondent
appeals, contending that the finding that he was an unfit parent
was not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
In 1991, the State filed petitions for adjudication of
wardship alleging that A.M. and V.M. were neglected in that they
were subjected to an injurious environment. The children were
made wards of the court on January 22, 1992, and were placed in
foster care with their maternal great grandmother. On September
12, 1995, the children's mother signed a consent to have the
children adopted by the foster mother. The State subsequently
filed a petition alleging that respondent was an unfit parent
within the meaning of the Adoption Act. 750 ILCS 50/1 et. seq.
(West 1996). Specifically, the State alleged that respondent
failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or
responsibility as to his children's welfare; failed to protect
his children from injurious conditions within their environment;
and failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions
that were the basis for the removal of the children or to make
reasonable progress toward the return of the children to him
within 12 months after the adjudication of neglect.
A parental fitness hearing as to Marvin M. was held on
August 20, 1996. Jackie Green, a caseworker for the Department
of Children and Family Services (DCFS), testified that she was
assigned to the case between August 1991 and August 1993. She
testified that Chicago Youth Center (CYC) was also assigned to
the case and that Charles Martin was the caseworker from CYC.
Green did not recall having any contact with respondent in 1991.
The children's mother told her that respondent was incarcerated,
but Green did not remember contacting him. Green added that it
was the private agency's responsibility to contact respondent.
On February 11, 1992, there was an administrative case
review (ACR), which respondent and Martin attended. At the ACR,
parents are told the reason why the children were placed in the
custody of DCFS and offered services if the parents indicate that
they want their children back. The parents are also provided
with the name and telephone number of the caseworker involved in
the case. The service plan from that date indicated that the
mother was attending parenting skills classes, with the hope of
having A.M. and V.M. returned to her. The plan also indicated
that respondent contacted Martin about gaining custody of his
children. There was also a list of tasks to be completed as part
of the service plan. The first task required CYC to coordinate
weekly visits between respondent and the children at respondent's
request. Respondent was also required to attend parenting skills
classes, and he had specific tasks concerning his conduct during
visits. Finally, the task sheet required respondent to submit to
a psychological evaluation before the children were returned to
him. Both the mother's and respondent's signatures appear on the
first page of the service plan, and respondent indicated that he
understood the tasks. Green testified that she had no knowledge
that respondent completed the tasks in the service plan.
Charles Martin was the CYC caseworker assigned to the case
between 1991 and 1993. He did not recall actually speaking to
respondent at the February 11, 1992, ACR. Martin testified that
if parents did not make themselves available for services, he
would make a diligent search for them. He believed that
respondent was incarcerated in mid-1992. Martin attempted to
find respondent by talking to the mother and foster mother.
However, he did not learn where respondent was incarcerated.
Martin did not believe that respondent visited the children while
he was assigned to the case because there was no indication that
such visits occurred.
Randee Jemc, a CYC caseworker, was assigned to the case in
August 1993. He testified that he did not know respondent's
whereabouts and had no contact with respondent until June 1994.
Jemc made unsuccessful attempts to locate respondent by mail. He
spoke to the foster mother every month and asked if she knew
respondent's whereabouts. He gave business cards to the foster
mother every month to give to respondent if he contacted her. On
October 1, 1993, the foster mother told Jemc that she gave
respondent Jemc's business card. On December 27, 1993, the foster
mother reported that respondent stopped by on Christmas Day for
about an hour. On February 10, 1994, Jemc evaluated the client
service plan for the period between March 1993 and February 1994.
Under respondent's task section, the plan provided that
respondent's needs and interest in A.M. and V.M. would be
assessed by CYC upon his release from jail and the appropriate
services would be offered to him. A second task was to develop a
service plan for respondent when he was released from jail. In
February 1994 Jemc evaluated the performance of both tasks as
unsatisfactory because respondent's whereabouts were unknown.
Jemc testified that he had no contact with respondent until
June 1994. On July 25, 1994, Jemc evaluated the client service
plan for February through July 1994 and gave respondent an
unsatisfactory evaluation for all service tasks and visitation
because respondent was not cooperating with the visitation plan
and had just made his whereabouts known. Jemc testified that he
believed respondent may have visited the children once between
August 1993 and July 1994. Jemc sent respondent a "diligent
search" letter in June 1994, and respondent telephoned him on
July 28, 1994. During the conversation, respondent admitted he
knew who Jemc was because he had already received information on
how to contact him. Jemc told respondent he needed to complete a
social assessment which would determine what further services
were needed. Respondent did complete the social assessment.
Jemc said that parenting skills classes and a substance abuse
assessment were still needed. Respondent was invited to an ACR
on August 4, 1994, but respondent did not attend. At the ACR,
the foster mother said that respondent came to visit the
children, but brought an "entourage" of family members with him.
The foster mother requested that the number of people attending
the visits be limited. The service plan from that ACR indicated
that respondent should visit by himself to ensure a higher
quality of visitation. On August 25, 1994, there was a visit
with the children scheduled, but respondent did not attend.
On September 1, 1994, Jemc left a message for respondent to
schedule a meeting. During a visit on September 6, 1994, the
foster mother indicated that respondent said he was not visiting
the children because he thought his visiting rights had been
terminated. On November 8, 1994, the foster mother told Jemc
that respondent "will not visit unless his family can also
visit." Jemc established phone contact with respondent in
December 1994, and made a home visit with respondent on January
20, 1995. Caseworker Arlana Goodall was also present at that
home visit. At that time, respondent indicated that he wanted
the mother to be reunited with the children and did not want to
have the children because the foster mother would be angry.
Respondent did not want the great aunt to have custody of the
children, and he gave Jemc the impression that if the mother
could not obtain custody, he would want custody of the children.
In his February 9, 1995, evaluation, Jemc gave respondent a
satisfactory rating for completing a social assessment, but an
unsatisfactory rating for all other tasks. The evaluation
indicated that Jemc met with respondent only once, and that
respondent had visited the children only once during the
reporting period. On February 21, 1995, Jemc made a second home
visit with respondent, along with Goodall, in which respondent
said that he was working with Lutheran Social Services of
Illinois (LSSI) to obtain the return of one of his other
children. Jemc gave respondent a telephone number for parental
stress and a referral for parenting skills. Jemc also asked
respondent for verification of any services that he had
completed, and respondent signed consents to allow Jemc to speak
with his caseworker at LSSI. Jemc did not contact LSSI to verify
respondent's participation because the caseworker who succeeded
him had that responsibility. Respondent first said that he did
not attend the August ACR because he had car trouble. During the
same visit, respondent also said that he visited the children
three times each month during the summer and that he forgot about
the ACR in August. Jemc's notes mentioned that respondent seemed
to have "excuses." Respondent also mentioned that he had been in
prison, and Jemc told him he could have arranged for visits in
prison. An ACR was held on February 24, 1995, but neither the
parents nor the foster mother arrived at the DCFS office until
after the review was completed.
In January 1995, Goodall was assigned to the case. When she
reviewed the case file, she found no indication that respondent
had been involved in services with CYC or any other agency. The
file indicated that respondent had visited at the foster mother's
home, but that there was conflict because of the other people
that respondent brought with him. Goodall was unable to
determine how many times respondent visited the children between
1991 and 1995. There was no documentation of visits and she was
uncertain why there was no documentation. Goodall and respondent
discussed his intentions for the children's future. Respondent
told Goodall that he had been visiting the children at the foster
mother's residence, but the foster mother had stopped the visits
because he brought too many people with him. Goodall arranged to
have the visits occur at CYC. Goodall supervised a visit between
respondent and the children in March 1995. Respondent brought
his mother, his wife and his children to the visit. Respondent
spent time playing with both children. Goodall testified that
respondent completed five visits with the children between
February and August 1995. She stated that the visits were
scheduled once a month. Goodall stated that this rate of
visitation was in compliance with the service plan. While she
was assigned to the case, respondent was involved in parenting
skills classes and had completed a psychological evaluation
through LSSI. These services were offered to respondent to
facilitate reunification with his other child, not these two
children. However, Goodall did not want to duplicate the
services being offered to respondent. Goodall stated that
respondent never indicated to her that he had changed his
intentions towards these two children.
The State published the case notes of Jeanine Jones from a
September 12, 1995, court date. She noted that respondent had
attended court that date, and that the termination case had been
continued because respondent "plans to contest even though he
realizes the children are fine where they are, however he
believes that if he gives up his rights to [the children] that it
will adversely affect his chances to get his son."
Audrey Church was the caseworker from November 30, 1995,
until December 27, 1995. She had no contact with respondent
during that time. Church unsuccessfully attempted to contact him
by letter and telephone to notify him of holiday parties for the
children that the children wanted him to attend. Respondent did
not attend any of the children's parties. All of the letters
from Church were returned, stamped "addressee unknown."
Troy Galvach testified that he was the caseworker assigned
to the case since January 1996. As of February 1996, respondent
had no visits with the children at CYC, and Galvach's first
contact with respondent was in February. Respondent met with
Galvach at an ACR. At this ACR, a new service plan was
established, with visits scheduled to occur monthly on the last
Tuesday of the month, from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. at CYC. Respondent
never visited the children at CYC while Galvach was assigned to
the case. At an ACR on August 7, 1996, respondent stated that he
had been unable to visit the children because his mother had been
ill. Respondent told Galvach that he was willing to visit either
at CYC or at the foster home. Respondent said he had a problem
with visits at the foster home because the foster mother did not
want him to visit there. Galvach spoke with the foster mother
about respondent's visits with the children, and she said that
respondent visited three or four times in the preceding six
months. Respondent said he visited them four to five times in
the preceding six months. Galvach testified that one reason to
require parents to visit at the agency is "to make a parent show
a little effort visiting the child."
Galvach said that respondent had not completed all of the
services in the service plan. He believed that respondent was
supposed to be engaged in individual therapy. LSSI indicated
that respondent had complied with all services needed to obtain
custody of his other child, and that some of these services
overlapped with the services respondent needed to have these two
children returned. Galvach did not consider the visitation rate
of three to four times in six months consistent, but he
considered five out of six visits to be consistent.
Warteen W. testified that she is the children's great
grandmother and foster mother. The children were placed with her
in the summer of 1991. She did not know respondent at that time
and first met him after his release from jail. She testified
that she believed respondent had been in jail for two years.
Respondent did not visit the children until two years after they
were placed with her despite the fact that she told respondent he
could visit the children anytime. Warteen testified that
respondent visited the children four or five times accompanied by
other members of his family. Other than those visits, she
believed respondent visited about three or four times in her
home. She recalled that respondent visited on Christmas Day in
1994 and 1995. During the preceding six months, respondent had
visited the children twice in her home. Warteen said that all of
respondent's visits were short ones. She also said that after
the visits were changed to CYC, there were two occasions on which
she took the children there, but respondent did not appear. The
last time respondent saw the children was at his mother's
funeral.
Loretta W. testified that she is the biological mother of
the two children. Her relationship with respondent began in July
1987 and ended because they were on bad terms. She and
respondent had many fights, one of which occurred at A.M.'s
birthday party. On that occasion, Loretta and respondent both
had knives, and the children were present. She put respondent in
jail "lots of times," but added that she "just didn't go through
with it."
Respondent was called as a witness by the State. He
testified that he is the father of A.M. and V.M. He said that
he was in jail in March 1990 and March 1991. Respondent also
said he was on house arrest in January 1992. He did not visit
the children while he was in jail. Since the children were
placed with the foster mother, he had not made any child support
payments to her. He recalled meeting with Jemc and discussing
the service plan and visitation with Jemc at a January 1995
meeting at his home. Respondent recalled being present at the
February 1992 ACR with his wife. Respondent said that he visited
the children as often as he could and would have visited more if
allowed. He said that he began visiting in April 1994 and
continued visitation until February 1995. Respondent also
testified that he did not know why CYC did not give him a
specific date or time for visitation. He said that his wife grew
up in the area near the foster parent's home and he visited the
children while she visited her friends. When a conflict arose in
February 1995, respondent contacted Goodall and had the visits
moved to CYC. The last visit respondent attended at CYC was in
August 1995, because Goodall left CYC and did not leave him the
name of a caseworker to contact. Respondent testified that after
Goodall left, he contacted CYC to set up visits in September and
October and was told that there was no worker on the case. He
said that because of the turnover of caseworkers, there were long
periods between scheduled visits. Respondent began visiting at
the foster home in September 1995 and visited the children every
month from January 1996 until May 1996. After May, he did not
visit because his mother was seriously ill and he was the only
family member with a car. His mother died in July 1996 and he
saw the children at the funeral. Respondent stated that because
CYC never provided him with any services, he obtained the
services through LSSI. According to respondent, he complied with
all of the services except visitation, such as the social
assessment, parenting skills classes and a psychological
evaluation.
In rebuttal, the State called Vicky W., the children's
maternal great aunt. She resides in the home with the children.
She testified that there were five visits scheduled at CYC, and
she was present for all of the visits. Respondent did not show
up for two of them, and they were cancelled. After August 1995,
the next time respondent saw the children was on Christmas Day
1995. He brought toys and stayed about 30 minutes. He next saw
the children in April 1996 at the foster home when he stopped by
to pick up pictures. The next time he saw the children was at
his mother's funeral in July 1996.
Also in rebuttal, the State published an emergency room
medical report for respondent's current wife. The report showed
that she had many bruises from a fight with respondent, but she
refused to talk to the police. Respondent denied fighting with
her.
The unfitness of a parent must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence. In re Brown, 86 Ill. 2d 147, 152 (1981). A
finding of parental unfitness may be based on evidence sufficient
to support any one statutory ground, even if the evidence is not
sufficient to support the other grounds alleged. In Interest of
C.R., 221 Ill. App. 3d 373, 378 (1991). A reviewing court will
not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court when the
trial court's decision is clearly supported by the record, but
reversal is required when the trial court's decision is contrary
to the manifest weight of the evidence. In Interest of L.N., 278
Ill. App. 3d 46, 49 (1996). The rationale underlying this
standard is that the trial court's opportunity to view and
evaluate the parties and their testimony is superior to that of a
reviewing court. Brown, 86 Ill. 2d at 152. Accordingly, the
trial court's findings should be given great deference. Brown,
86 Ill. 2d at 152. Each case concerning parental unfitness is
sui generis, (In re Adoption of Syck, 138 Ill. 2d 255, 279
(1990)), and factual comparisons between cases are of little
value (In re S.J., 233 Ill. App. 3d 88, 113 (1992)).
In order to find a parent unfit under section 1(D)(b) of the
Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b) (West 1996)), the trial court
must find by clear and convincing evidence that the parent
"'fail[ed] to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern,
or responsibility as to the child's welfare.'" Syck, 138 Ill. 2d
at 273-74; citing In re Paul, 101 Ill. 2d 345, 352 (1984). Our
supreme court has stated that:
"In determining whether a parent showed
reasonable concern, interest or
responsibility as to a child's welfare, we
have to examine the parent's conduct
concerning the child in the context of the
circumstances in which that conduct occurred.
Circumstances that warrant consideration when
deciding whether a parent's failure to
personally visit his or her child establishes
a lack of reasonable interest, concern or
responsibility as to the child's welfare
include a parent's difficulty in obtaining
transportation to the child's residence, the
parent's poverty, the actions and statements
of others that hinder or discourage
visitation and whether the parent's failure
to visit the child was motivated by a need to
cope with other aspects of his or her life or
by true indifference to, and lack of concern
for, the child. If personal visits with the
child are somehow impractical, letters,
telephone calls, and gifts to the child may
demonstrate a reasonable degree of concern,
interest and responsibility, depending upon
the content, tone, and frequency of those
contacts under the circumstances. * * * [A]
court is to examine the parent's efforts to
communicate with and show interest in the
child, not the success of those efforts."
Syck, 138 Ill. 2d at 278-279.
The record establishes that respondent was incarcerated
prior to the time the children were first removed from the
mother's home by DCFS until the beginning of 1992, which would
explain why he was not visiting with the children at that time.
We are aware that respondent's periods of incarceration severely
restricted his ability to demonstrate concern for his children,
but some effort towards that end should have been made. See In
re T.D., 268 Ill. App. 3d 239, 248 (1994). Respondent attended
an ACR within one month of his release from prison, but missed
others. He sometimes visited the children at the foster parent's
home and visited three times at CYC. Respondent did not attend
every scheduled visit, and offered various excuses for his
absences.
The issue is whether he maintained concern, interest and
responsibility as to his children's welfare that, under the
circumstances, "was of a reasonable degree." Syck, 138 Ill. 2d
at 280. The record reflects that respondent had four other
children besides A.M. and V.M., had remarried, and was seeking
custody of another of his children who was in DCFS custody.
Although the record also shows that there was some turnover in
caseworkers at CYC, the trial court could reasonably have
concluded that respondent's failure to attend visits there
resulted from his own indifference rather than difficulties
attributable to the turnover in personnel. There is some
evidence that when there was no worker on the case, respondent
resumed his sporadic visitation with the children at the foster
parent's home. However, we do not believe that respondent's
efforts show a reasonable degree of concern, interest and
responsibility as to his children's welfare. The first two-and
one-half years the children were in DCFS custody, respondent did
not visit them at all, even after he was made aware that they
were in foster care. Respondent did give the children gifts at
Christmas and sometimes money for birthdays. However, when he
visited them, he stayed for only 15 to 30 minutes. There was no
evidence that he ever called the children or sent them cards or
letters. By his own testimony, he usually visited the children
when his wife was visiting her friends. He did not attend most
of the scheduled visits and did not fully comply with services
offered by CYC, although he had complied with services through
LSSI for the return of his other child. Respondent's efforts to
communicate with and show interest in his children were minimal,
at best. The trial court did not err in finding him unfit and
terminating his parental rights.
Because a finding of parental unfitness may be based on
evidence to support any one statutory ground, we decline to
address respondent's other arguments. See In Interest of C.R.,
221 Ill. App. 3d 373 (1991).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the
circuit court.
Affirmed.